i»£^^^^^-^.>:--^^^^^:•:^^^^%%^^^^^^:•:':^!.s^^^^:^^^^^!•^!^^^^!.^ 


<^,!0^jme}^ 


POl       * 


^^ei^Llt^N*^ 


Di' 


THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT 


FROM      THE 


MODERN    POINT  OF  VIEW 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


FROM    THE 


MODERN   POINT  OF  VIEW 


BY  y^y 
REV.  L.  W.  WTTEN,  Ph.D. 

Recior  of  St.  Mark's  Church,  New   York  ;  formerly  Professor  of  the 

Old  Testament  Languages  and  Literature  in  the 

Philadelphia  Divinity  School 


SECOND  EDITION 


New  York 

EDWIN  S.  GORHAM,  PUBLISHER 

Fourth  Avenue  and  22d  Street 

1 901 


Copyright,  1899 

BY 

JAMES    POTT    &   COMPANY 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 


SOME  typographical  errors  have  been  corrected  in  this  edition  ; 
but  I  have  not  deemed  it  advisable  to  change  the  text. 
I  am  glad  to  have  this  opportunity  to  express  my  gratitude  for 
the  many  kind  words  which  have  been  said  about  this  book,  both 
in  reviews  and  in  letters.  The  particular  testimony  which  I  value 
most  is  that  the  book  has  been  found  useful  to  students  of  the 
Bible,  and  that  it  has  proved  helpful  to  a  vital  faith. 

L.  W.  B. 
St.  Mark's  Church,  New  York, 
January  i,  1901. 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT   FROM   THE 
MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


PREFACE. 


EVERY  age  has  its  own  way  of  looking  at  things.  The  things 
themselves  are  the  same  in  every  age ;  but  they  often  ap- 
pear to  be  different  as  they  are  seen  from  one  or  another 
point  of  view.  In  many  respects  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  see  as 
our  fathers  saw.  We  can  see  as  they  did  only  as  we  are  able  to 
get  their  point  of  view.  It  is  doubtless  best  for  every  age  to  see 
with  its  own  eyes,  because  with  them  it  can  see  most  clearly,  and 
it  is  by  clear  vision  that  true  progress  can  be  made. 

If  we  look  at  the  Old  Testament  from  the  modern  point  of  view, 
we  see  the  same  collection  of  sacred  writings  which  our  fathers  in 
the  Christian  Church  have  long  held  in  high  veneration ;  but  we 
see  them  as  they  did  not  and  could  not.  We  may  hope  that  we 
are  of  the  same  spirit  as  they,  but  we  must  not  forego  the  vantage 
point  of  our  many  centuries  of  progress. 

The  modern  point  of  view,  in  Biblical  science,  as  in  other 
sciences,  is  merely  the  point  from  which  one  endeavors  to  see 
things  as  they  are.  This  age  is  not  wont  to  look  at  things  from 
the  standpoint  of  an  established  theory,  but  from  that  of  a  deter- 
mination to  get  at  the  actual  facts.  In  some  respects  modern 
science  seems  cold,  irreverent,  even  reckless  in  its  quest  of  truth. 
Applied  to  the  Bible,  it  seems  to  pay  little  heed   to  theories  of  the 


ii  PREFACE. 

date  and  authorship  of  the  sacred  writings — theories  which  have 
been  so  long  cherished  that  they  have  come  to  be  regarded  as 
established  facts.  But  after  all  the  effort  is  good  in  its  purpose. 
For  it  is  evident  that  its  aim  is  to  get  back  of  the  long  prevalent 
opinions,  and  to  see  things  as  they  appeared  to  those  who  lived  and 
moved  and  had  their  being  among  the  things  in  question. 

It  is  undoubtedly  a  great  gain  to  be  able  to  look  upon  an  ancient 
writing  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  writer  and  of  his  first  readers. 
It  is  a  great  gain  to  stand  beside  the  ancient  prophet,  and  to  see 
the  conditions  which  he  saw,  and  by  which  God  moved  his  pro- 
phetic spirit.  To  do  this  we  must  look  with  the  eyes  of  our  own 
age,  because  it  is  thus  we  are  enabled  to  look  with  the  eyes  of  the 
prophet.  The  object  of  modern  historical  criticism,  therefore,  is  to 
get  back  to  the  view-point  of  those  who  spoke  and  wrote  in  an- 
cient times. 

The  sacred  literature  of  the  Hebrews  has  come  down  to  us  in 
books  and  collections  of  books.  The  eyes  of  this  generation  are 
turned  back  to  see  how  those  books  were  made,  and  to  understand 
the  controlling  literary  spirit  of  the  times  in  which  they  were  com- 
posed. 

There  are  some  aspects  of  the  Old  Testament  which  must  appear 
essentially  the  same  to  every  devout  Christian  student,  no  matter 
to  what  period  he  belongs.  In  the  fourth  Christian  century,  for 
example,  the  fundamental  belief  of  the  Church  was  thus  expressed 
in  the  Nicene  Creed :  "  Who  spake  by  the  prophets."  Those 
words  state  clearly  and  admirably  the  faith  of  the  present  age  as 
well,  and  of  every  age  intervening. 

In  the  last  chapter  of  the  present  volume  I  have  dwelt  upon  the 
effects  of  Biblical  criticism  upon  the  essentials  of  the  faith,  my  aim 
and  desire  being  to  show  that  critical  investigation  does  not  have  a 
harmful,  but  a  helpful  result.  That  chapter  stands  in  its  logical 
position  at  the  end  of  the  book ;  but  nevertheless  it  may  be  well 


PREFACE.  iii 

for  readers  to  whom  the  problems  herein  discussed  are  compara- 
tively new  to  read  that  chapter  first.  The  doctrine  which  is  sup- 
posed to  be  most  seriously  and  harmfully  affected  by  the  results  of 
criticism  is  inspiration.  As  a  theory,  it  is  true,  inspiration  is  looked 
at  differently  to-day  from  what  it  has  been  in  the  past ;  but  there 
is  more  than  compensating  gain  in  that  the  emphasis  is  now  laid 
upon  the  fact  of  inspiration. 

The  subjects  discussed  in  this  volume  are  chiefly  the  literary 
problems  which  a  thoughtful  reading  of  the  Old  Testament  inevit- 
ably raises.  In  dealing  with  these  problems  I. have  felt  no  dispo- 
sition to  be  dogmatic.  On  the  contrary,  I  have  desired  to  lay 
before  the  reader  the  evidence  upon  which  modern  results  are 
based,  so  that  he  can  himself  judge  of  their  validity.  It  did  not 
come  within  the  scope  of  my  plan  to  take  up  all  the  problems  of 
the  Old  Testament ;  but  I  have  chosen  typical  examples  from  the 
different  parts  into  which  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  are  naturally 
divided.  It  seemed  to  me  that  in  this  way  could  be  given  the  best 
general  idea  of  the  work  which  has  been  done. 

Coleridge  says  that  "  an  author  has  three  points  to  settle :  to 
what  sort  his  work  belongs,  for  what  description  of  readers  it  is 
intended,  and  the  specific  end,  or  object,  which  it  is  to  answer." 

The  first  of  these  points  has  already  been  answered,  at  least  in 
part.  If  any  further  statement  is  needed,  I  could  not  give  it  better 
than  in  the  words  of  the  author  just  quoted  :  "  It  belongs  to  the 
class  of  didactic  works.  Consequently,  those  who  neither  wish 
instruction  for  themselves,  nor  assistance  in  instructing  others 
have  no  interest  in  its  contents."  The  aim  of  this  book  certainly 
is  not  to  entertain,  but  to  teach.  If  it  fails  in  that,  it  is  a  failure 
altogether. 

With  that  emphatic  statement,  I  pass  on  to  Coleridge's  second 
point,  "  For  whom  }  "  The  book  was  not  written  for  the  compar- 
atively small  body  of  Old  Testament  scholars,  who  are  familiar 


fv  PREFACE. 

with  the  working  out  of  all  the  problems  considered  here,  and 
whose  knowledge  would  not  be  increased  by  anything  I  have  said. 
There  has  been  no  effort  to  fill  these  pages  with  original  contribu- 
tions in  fields  already  well  worked. 

But  there  is,  I  am  persuaded,  a  large  class  of  thoughtful  Chris- 
tian people  who  have  not  leisure  for  scholarly  investigation,  but 
who  nevertheless  desire  to  have  some  exact  knowledge  of  the  dis- 
cussions which  have  so  greatly  influenced  the  modern  view  of  the 
Old  Testament.  They  may  or  may  not  be  prepared  to  accept  the 
conclusions  reached  by  the  specialists ;  but  they  do  wish  to  know 
what  those  scholars  hold,  and  the  character  of  the  evidence  upon 
which  their  opinions  are  based.  They  want  this  knowledge  fur- 
nished in  a  form  readily  intelligible  to  those  who  have  no  large 
acquaintance  with  the  books  which  treat  of  the  questions  at  issue  ; 
and  they  want  the  information  in  a  form  sufficiently  brief  for  the 
busiest  man  in  this  busy  age. 

Whether  I  have  succeeded  in  meeting  the  wants  of  this  class  or 
not  it  is  of  course  for  them  to  say.  But  if  this  book  does  meet 
their  needs,  it  will,  at  least  in  the  mind  of  the  writer,  justify  its 
existence. 

I  spoke  advisedly  of  this  class  as  Christian  ;  for  this  book  has 
been  written,  as  will  appear  to  those  who  read  it  through,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  a  believer,  not  only  in  the  verities  of  the  Christian 
religion,  but  also  in  the  Old  Testament  as  an  inspired  record  of  a 
divine  revelation.  However  great  freedom  the  writer  may  feel  in 
the  investigation  of  the  critical  questions  which  are  found  in  the 
Old  Testament,  he  desires  to  assert  most  emphatically  that  he 
discovers  nothing  in  the  results  of  his  studies  at  variance  with  the 
Christian  faith. 

Coleridge's  third  point  is,  "  For  what?"  There  are  some  people 
who  have  been  seriously  troubled  by  the  new  ideas  of  the  Old 
Testament  which   are  now  becoming  so  widely  prevalent.     But 


PREFACE,  V 

there  is  also  a  large  number  whose  religious  faith  was  wrecked  by 
a  theory  of  the  Old  Testament  which  laid  upon  their  consciences 
a  burden  greater  than  they  could  bear.  The  modern  views  have 
helped  many  of  this  class  to  re-accept  the  once  discarded  Scrip- 
tures, and  to  get  back  their  Christian  faith. 

The  Old  Testament,  of  late  years,  has  been  sadly  neglected 
among  Christian  believers.  They  could  best  meet  its  difficulties 
by  letting  it  alone.  There  are  now  good  signs  of  a  revival  of  in- 
terest in  these  books,  which  were  the  sacred  Scriptures  of  our  Lord 
and  of  His  Apostles.  That  revival  will  be  greatly  helped  by  the 
dissemination  of  truer  views  of  the  actual  course  of  events  in  He- 
brew history,  and  of  the  actual  character  of  the  Old  Testament 
records. 

The  writer  ventures  to  hope  also  that  those  who  are  at  present 
unfriendly  toward  the  historical  criticism  of  the  Bible  will  come  to 
recognize  at  least  the  fact  that  the  animus  of  the  critical  student  is 
good.  Difference  of  opinion,  in  matters  of  opinion,  is  a  slight 
thing;  but  the  misapprehension  of  motive  is  a  serious  thing.  If 
this  presentation  of  modern  views  of  the  Old  Testament  shall  help 
along  a  juster  appreciation  of  critical  investigation  on  the  part  of 
those  who  now  fear  that  it  is  destructive,  one  earnest  hope  of  the 
writer  will  be  fulfilled. 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  make  the  work  a  compendium  of 
critical  opinions  ;  nor  have  I  sought  to  support  every  assertion  by 
abundant  references.  I  have  not  pretended  to  acknowledge  all  my 
indebtedness  to  others ;  for  the  task  would  be  too  great.  This 
book  is  the  fruit  of  ten  years'  study  and  teaching  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  but  I  gladly  acknowledge  the  aid  which  I  have  received  in 
those  years  from  all  the  many  good  books,  new  and  old,  which 
have  been  written  upon  these  subjects. 

The  translation  of  the  passages  cited  from  the  Old  Testament  is 
my  own.     I  claim  no  especial  credit  for  this  ;  but  I  could  not  satisfy 


vl  PREFACE. 

myself  with  following  any  existing  version.  The  one  merit  at 
which  I  have  aimed  is  fidelity  to  the  original.  I  have  departed  as 
little  as  possible,  however,  from  the  Revised  Version. 

It  will  be  noted  that  in  the  translations  I  have  used  "  Jahveh  "  as 
the  sacred  name  of  God,  in  other  places  "Jehovah."  When  one 
remembers  that  the  name  "  Jehovah  "  is  formed  by  combining  the 
consonants  of  the  sacred  name  JHVH  with  the  vowels  of  another 
divine  name,  Adonai  (Lord),  which  the  later  Jews  substituted  for 
JHVH  in  reading  the  Scriptures,  he  cannot  help  wishing  that  we 
were  rid  entirely  of  this  unfortunate  form.  But  while  "Jahveh" 
(or,  perhaps  better,  Yahwe),  represents  the  probable  pronunciation 
of  the  name,  it  is  not  certainly  so.  We  are  likely  at  any  day  to  get 
evidence  from  the  Babylonian  inscriptions  which  will  definitely  set- 
tle this  vexed  question.  When  we  are  assured  of  the  correct  form 
of  the  name,  v/e  should  be  ready  to  abandon  the  form  "  Jehovah." 
We  are  sure  that  no  Hebrew  ever  called  the  Deity  by  that  name; 
but  neither  are  we  sure,  in  spite  of  the  strange  guesses  we  now 
sometimes  see  in  print,  in  what  way  the  divine  name  was  pro- 
nounced. 

I  wish  to  take  this  opportunity  to  express  my  gratitude  to  my 
former  preceptor,  Dr.  John  P.  Peters  ;  to  my  former  colleague. 
Prof.  R.  W.  Micou,  D.D.;  and  to  my  present  co-worker.  Prof. 
Wm.  M.  Groton,  who  have  read  the  manuscript  or  proof  of  this 
book,  and  from  all  of  whom  I  have  received  helpful  suggestions. 

L.  W.  Batten. 
Philadelphia  Divinity  School, 
March  8,  1899. 


CHAPTER  I. 

flntroDuctorg. 

Pp.  7-30. 


CHAPTER  II. 

©encral  Brfluments  against  tbe 
DaliDitg  of  Critical  IResuUs. 

Pp.  31-52. 


CHAPTER  III. 

^be  Ibcjatcucb. 

THE    BOOK   OF    DEUTERONOMY. 
Pp.  53-78- 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Ebe  Ibejateucb. 

2.      THE    NARRATIVE. 
Pp.   79-H9. 

CHAPTER  V. 

Cbc  Dejateucb. 

3.      THE    LAW. 
Pp.    120-160. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

^be  Iblstorlcal  Mooke* 

Pp.  161-186. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

JStbKcal  1bl0tocs. 

Pp.  187-220. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

^be  ipropbets. 

Pp.  221-254. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

^be  JBoo\{  of  ipsalms. 

1.  THE    EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 

Pp.  255-284. 

CHAPTER  X. 

Ube  :fiSooft  ot  psalms. 

2.  THE    INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 

Pp.   285-312. 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Criticism  anD  tbe  Supernatural. 

Pp.  3 '3-34'. 

INDEXES. 
Pp-  343-354- 


CHAPTER  L 


flntrobuctorij. 

THE  higher  criticism  has  ceased  to  be  a  young 
science.  Measured  by  time,  or  by  the  truer 
standard  of  achievement,  it  has  won  its  way 
to  the  front  rank,  and  is  now  recognized  generally  as 
an  indispensable  handmaid  in  Biblical  study.  Many 
people,  however,  speak  freely  of  this  science  who  do 
not  seem  to  have  a  clear  knowledge  of  its  precise 
scope.  It  is  especially  common  to  find  the  conclu- 
sions of  a  particular  school  of  Biblical  scholars  iden- 
tified with  the  name  of  the  method  by  which  their 
results  were  reached.  It  is  well  to  state  at  the  be- 
ginning just  what  is  meant  by  the  term  Higher  Criti- 
cism, a  term  which  will  be  often  used  in  this  book, 
and  which  is  so  much  used  in  theological  discussions 
to-day. 

In  spite  of  its  seemingly  arrogant  name,  a  source 
of  offence  to  many,  this  branch  of  study  aims  to  be 
modest  enough.  We  need  not  ask  higher  than  what  ? 
(or  the  English  comparative  fills  a  multitude  of  func- 
tions, and  the  term  here  simply  marks  a  contrast  with 
another  kind  of  criticism  called  the  lower.  The  lower 
criticism  deals  with  the  text,  and  is  now  in  fact  more 


8  THE  OLD    TESTAMENT  FROM 

commonly  called  textual  criticism.  Until  very  recent- 
ly lower  criticism  was  not  much  applied  to  the  Old 
Testament,  though  it  has  long  been  recognized  as 
indispensable  in  critical  New  Testament  study. 

In  the  case  of  the  New  Testament  there  are  mate- 
rials for  this  science  which  are  altogether  lacking  in 
that  of  the  Old.  The  oldest  Hebrew  manuscript  does 
not  antedate  the  tenth  century  A.D. ;  moreover,  all 
Hebrew  manuscripts  belong  to  the  same  family,  and 
therefore  exhibit  no  important  variants.  In  the  text- 
ual criticism  of  the  Old  Testament,  therefore,  reliance 
must  be  placed  on  the  ancient  translations  in  Greek, 
Latin  and  Syriac,  and  upon  conjecture.  Even  with 
such  scanty  materials  considerable  progress  has  been 
made  in  the  past  few  years,  the  Polychrome  Bible  (in 
Hebrew)  being  the  first  attempt  to  publish  a  critically 
revised  text.  Just  because  the  data  are  so  few,  it  is 
but  natural  that,  when  a  start  was  once  made,  conjec- 
tural emendations  of  the  text  should  occupy  a  promi- 
nent place.  The  pendulum  seems  at  present  likely  to 
make  a  pretty  wide  arc  in  that  direction  before  it  set- 
tles down  to  a  proper  centre.  But  a  sound  text  is  es- 
sential as  the  basis  for  all  other  study.  Being,  there- 
fore, the  foundation  of  all  Biblical  criticism,  and  in  this 
sense  only,  it  is  called  lower.  One  part  of  the  super- 
structure may  inoffensively  be  called  higher  in  a  purely 
spatial  relation,  without  seeming  to  be  arrogant,  or  to 
disparage  anything  else. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  g 

Higher  criticism  is  purely  literary  in  its  character. 
The  term  literary  criticism  is  innocent  enough  ;  yet  it 
is  the  same  thing  as  the  higher  criticism.  The  latter 
term  has  proved  unfortunate,  as  it  has  opened  the  way 
for  many  more  or  less  clever  gibes  from  those  who 
like  it  not.  But  doubtless  the  wits  would  have  found 
some  other  subject  to  ridicule,  if  this  opening  had  been 
denied  them.  Higher  criticism  is  a  method  of  study, 
and  does  not  imply  any  particular  kind  of  results,  radi- 
cal, moderate,  conservative,  or  traditional. 

There  is  a  single  question  we  must  ask  of  any  writ- 
ing which  we  undertake  to  study  :  What  is  its  origin? 
The  method  by  which  we  seek  to  answer  that  question 
scientifically  is  the  higher  criticism.  The  application 
of  this  method  by  different  hands  produces  very  differ- 
ent results.  The  array  of  evidence  is  marshalled  by 
this  method,  but  the  judgment  which  is  pronounced 
upon  the  evidence  is  beyond  the  sphere  of  this  science. 
One  scholar  examines  the  evidence — language,  style, 
thought,  historical  allusions,  etc.,  and  concludes  that 
a  certain  Psalm,  let  us  say,  is  pre-exilic  ;  another  using 
precisely  the  same  evidence  may  conclude  that  it  is 
Maccabean  ;  but  both  alike  are  higher  critics,  and  they 
reach  their  different  results  by  the  science  of  higher 
criticism. 

In  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament  the  higher  criti- 
cism has  been  applied  very  persistently  and  thor- 
oughly, and  with  most  important  results.     Its  sphere 


lo  THE    OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

is  the  age,  authorship  and  structure  of  the  various 
books.  It  is  often  looked  upon  as  a  new  science.  In 
a  sense  it  is.  But  sometimes  it  appears  that  the 
Preacher  was  right,  and  that  "  there  is  nothing  new 
under  the  sun."  The  fact  is  that  higher  criticism  was 
appHed  to  the  Old  Testament  a  long  while  ago,  as  the 
example  following  will  show. 

It  would  be  rash  to  venture  an  opinion  as  to  the 
date  when  the  heading  was  prefixed  to  the  Song  of 
Deborah,  one  of  the  earliest  literary  monuments  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible.  This  heading  (Judges  v.  i)  reads, 
"  Now  Deborah  and  Barak,  the  son  of  Abinoam,  sang 

in  that  day,  saying ."     But  an  examination  of  this 

heading,  or  title  page  (for  such  these  headings  are), 
shows  that  the  one  who  placed  it  there  was  a  higher 
critic  ;  for  he  tells  us  (i)  the  character  of  the  writing, 
that  it  is  a  song  ;  (2)  the  age,  on  the  day  of  the  great 
battle  with  Sisera ;  (3)  the  authors,  Debor?di  and 
Barak  ;  (4)  the  structure  of  the  poem,  reaching  the 
radical  conclusion  that  the  song  was  composite,  as  he 
deems  it  the  joint  production  of  two  authors."^  It  ap- 
pears that  this  higher  critic,  who  lived  several  centuries 
before  Christ,  had  no  more  data  to   determine   these 

*  The  form  in  the  Hebrew  shows  that  the  words  '*  and  Barak, 
the  son  of  Abinoam,"  were  an  afterthought,  probably  by  a  second 
editor.  (See  Moore's  "  Judges,"  in  loc.)  Literally  rendered,  the 
passage  runs:  "And  sang  Deborah,  and  Barak,  the  son  of  Abi- 
noam."    The  verb  "sang"  is   the  third   feminine  singular,  and 


TTJE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  ii 

questions  than  we  have  to-day.  It,  therefore,  is  not 
surprising-  that  many  modern  higher  critics  have 
reached  a  different  result  from  their  early  Jewish  pred- 
ecessor. Those  who  prefixed  headings  to  the  various 
prophecies,  to  the  Psalms,  and  to  other  Old  Testa- 
ment writings,  were  likewise  higher  critics.  In  fact, 
this  science  flourished  for  a  considerable  period  in  pre- 
Christian  times. 

These  critics,  like  their  modern  successors,  did  not 
always  agree  in  their  conclusions  ;  and  it  sometimes 
happens  that  there  is  preserved  more  than  one  opinion 
as  to  the  authorship  of  certain  pieces.  Examples  of 
this  will  be  found  in  the  treatment  of  the  Psalter  ;  but 
a  single  instance  may  be  cited  here.  The  title  to 
Psalm  Ixxxviii.  reads  thus:  "A  song.  A  psalm  of 
the  sons  of  Korah.  For  the  liturgy.  To  (the  tune 
of)  the  sickness.  To  be  sung.  A  didactic  poem 
(Maskil)  of  Heman  the  Ezrahite."  The  meaning  of 
some  of  the  terms  in  the  Psalm  headings  is  quite  un- 
certain. I  have  used  some  of  the  renderings  of  the 
Polychrome  Bible.  But  it  is  clear  that  the  above 
heading  is  the  result  ot  successive  editings,  and  that 
two  different  authors  are  credited  with  this  poem. 

The   most   marked  achievement    of  modern    higher 

Deborah  alone  is  its  proper  subject.  It  may  be,  therefore,  that 
there  were  two  higher  critics  from  the  pre-Christian  age  whose 
conclusions  have  survived.  Early  Christian  criticism  even  essayed 
to  state  which  parts  of  the  poem  were  due  to  each  of  the  authors. 


12  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT  FROM 

criticism  is  the  analysis  of  books  which  have  hereto- 
fore been  regarded  as  the  production  of  a  single  writer. 
There  is  nothing  inherently  unreasonable  in  this  critical 
analysis,  for  there  are  many  ways  in  which  an  author 
might  construct  a  book.  He  might  compose  it  entirely 
from  his  own  mind  ;  he  might  use  other  writers  freely, 
having  read  and  digested  their  ideas;  or  he  might  simply 
extract  passages  from  different  authors,  adding  only 
such  notes  as  were  necessary  to  connect  the  passages 
borrowed. 

Suppose,  for  example,  one  wanted  to  prepare  a  his- 
tory of  the  United  States  by  compilation.  By  a  judi- 
cious selection  it  would  be  possible  to  produce  a  very 
useful  history,  probably  more  useful  than  any  single 
one  now  in  existence.  For  no  one  can  fully  know 
the  history  of  any  period  who  has  read  but  a  single 
book. 

Now  the  contenti'on  of  the  modern  critics  is,  that  a 
large  number  of  the  books  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  were 
put  into  their  present  form  by  compilation.  In  mod- 
ern times  literary  ethics  requires  the  use  of  quotation 
marks,  and  generally  the  source  quoted  must  be  indi- 
cated ;  but  in  ancient  Israel  there  was  no  such  thing 
as  literary  ethics.  We  should  not  justly  appreciate 
such  a  compilation  as  mentioned  above,  because  of  the 
great  premium  which  is  placed  upon  originality ;  but 
among  the  ancient  Hebrews,  originality  was  so  little 
prized  that  books  were  published  anonymously,  or  un- 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  13 

der  a  noui  dc  phinic,  the  favorite  kind  being  the  name  of 
some  famous  person  of  the  past.  This  custom  lasted 
into  the  Christian  centuries,  too.  There  is  a  famous 
writer  of  the  fifth  century  a.d.,  whom  we  only  know 
under  his  noni  dc pliiiiic  of  Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  a 
Greek  who  was  converted  by  St.  Paul  at  Athens,  and 
who  lived  therefore  several  centuries  earlier  than  the 
unknown  author  who  borrowed  his  name.''^ 

Among  the  Hebrews,  as  among  other  peoples,  there 
was  an  age  of  original  literary  production,  and  there 
was  another  age  when  indeed  **  of  the  making  of  many 
books  there  was  no  end,"  but  when  the  literary  spirit 
had  changed.  The  genius  of  men  was  engaged  in 
compilation  and  codification  rather  than  in  original 
production.  Earlier  literature  was  treated  with  great 
freedom.  Parallel  histories  were  woven  into  one  ; 
scattered  prophecies  and  poems  were  collected  into 
convenient  books  ;  and  these  collections  acquired  a 
position  of  authority  previously  unknown. 

It  is  often  supposed  that  much  mischief  was  done  in 
this  age  of  collecting  and  editing,  because  so  many 
original  sources  were  lost  or  obscured  in  the  process 
of  compilation.  On  the  contrary,  too  much  gratitude 
can  scarcely  be  expressed  to  those  somewhat  mechan- 
ical bookmakers.  If  any  where  in  Church  history  the 
hand  of  God  can  be  seen,  it  is  there.  We  owe  it  ap- 
parently to  those  worthies  that  any  considerable  body 
*  Allen,"  Christian  Institutions,"  p.  495. 


14  THE    OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

of  Hebrew  sacred  literature  is  preserved.  It  would  be 
indeed  a  great  boop  if  we  had  the  sources  used  by  those 
compilers.  It  is  often  assumed  that  the  compilers  are 
responsible  for  their  loss;  but  this  assumption  is  utterly 
without  warrant.  It  is  quite  absurd  to  suppose  that 
when,  for  example,  the  two  earliest  sources  of  our 
present  Pentateuch  were  combined  into  a  single  his- 
tory, the  compiler  immediately  destroyed  every  extant 
copy  of  the  originals. 

The  compiler  of  Joshua  has  preserved  an  all  too 
brief  extract  from  the  "  Book  of  Jashar,"  a  collection 
of  poems  celebrating  the  exploits  of  Israel's  early 
heroes,  but  is  he  therefore  responsible  for  the  loss  of 
that  book  ?  The  value  of  these  sources  would  indeed 
be  inestimable  ;  but  it  is  infinitely  better  to  have 
such  extracts  as  the  compilers  have  preserved  than 
none  at  all.  It  was  the  sacred  character  of  these 
compilations  which  saved  them  from  destruction  in 
such  perilous  days  for  Hebrew  literature  as  those 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  On  the  doctrinal  side  it 
is  easy  to  ridicule  the  idea  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
various  redactors  or  editors;  it  is  easy  also  to  find  flaws 
in  their  poor  literary  work;  but  the  Church  owes  them 
a  debt  which  should  cover  a  multitude  of  sins;  for  they, 
under  God's  providence,  saved  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

It  is  often  objected  to  the  higher  criticism  that  its 
results  are  negative  and  destructive.  It  must  frankly 
plead  guilty  to  this  indictment  ;  but  not  in   the  sense 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF   VIEW.  15 

too  often  Intended.  Whenever  it  is  necessary  to  cor- 
rect a  generally  received  error,  there  is  necessarily  a 
negative  and  destructive  side  to  the  correction  ;  and  it 
often  happens  that  the  correction  for  a  time  goes  no 
further.  But  the  positive  and  constructive  stage  is 
sure  to  follow.  Wlien,  for  example,  Joseph  Mede  in 
1632  denied  that  Zechariah  the  prophet  wrote  the 
whole  of  the  book  called  by  his  name,  that  result  was 
negative  ;  but  when  he  said  further  that  Jeremiah 
wrote  a  part  of  this  prophecy,  his  conclusion  was  posi- 
tive and  constructive."^ 

In  Biblical  criticism  it  is  often  inevitable  that  the 
negative  stage  shall  be  in  part  final.  The  second  part 
of  Isaiah  is  believed  to  belong  to  the  time  of  the 
Babylonian  exile.  In  removing  it  from  the  Isaianic 
age  and  authorship,  the  result  is  negative.  As  it  is  im- 
possible to  tell  who  the  exilic  author  was,  the  negative 
result  must  be  final,  so  far  as  authorship  goes.  But  is 
it  a  purely  negative  result  to  remove  a  wrong  conclu- 
sion, even  if  it  is  not  possible  to  put  the  right  one  in 
its  place  ?  But  criticism  was  not  obliged  to  stop  with 
a  negation.  The  prophecy  is  removed  from  an  age  to 
which  it  does  not  belong,  and  in  which  it  has  no  fit- 
ness, to  its  true  position,  where  every  Hne  speaks  with 
new  life  and  meaning.     Is  this  result  not  both  positive 

*  His  object  wa^  to  vindicate  St.  Matthew's  reference  (xxvii.  9)  of 
a  quotation  from  Zechariah  (xi.  13)  to  Jeremiah.  See  G.  A.  Smith's 
"  Twelve  Prophets,"  II.,  450. 


1 6  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

and  constructive  ?  The  history  of  the  Jews  in  exile 
was  almost  a  blank  until  this  result  was  reached.  Now 
we  have  material  which  enables  us  to  draw  a  tolerably 
complete  picture  of  that  interesting  stage  in  Israel's  his- 
tory. On  the  whole,  then,  is  this  critical  discovery  loss 
or  gain  ? 

The  critical  conclusions  of  modern  times  are  not  the 
result  of  a  destructive  or  sceptical  spirit  which  seeks 
to  find  as  many  errors  as  possible  in  the  Bible,  or  in 
the  traditional  views  about  the  Bible.  They  are  the 
result  of  an  effort  to  explain  the  facts  which  one  finds 
in  the  Bible  the  moment  one  begins  to  study  it  with 
care.  Why  did  Mede  assign  a  part  of  Zechariah  to 
Jeremiah  ?  He  found  that  St.  Matthew  quoted  a  pas- 
sage from  the  former,  but  credited  it  to  the  latter.  It 
was  apparent,  then,  that  either  the  statement  in  the 
Gospel  was  an  error,  or  else  that  Jeremiah  wTote  the 
passage  in  question.  Mede  preferred  the  latter  alter- 
native, and  his  conclusion  is  the  only  logical  one  for 
those  who  m.aintain  that  the  New  Testament  use  is  de- 
cisive in  critical  questions.  The  modern  critic  finds 
insuperable  difficulties  against  assigning  this  passage 
to  either  Zechariah  or  Jeremiah  ;  but  the  difficulties 
are  not  brought  in  from  the  outside  ;  they  lie  in  the 
prophecy  itself. 

Many  other  illustrations  of  this  important  aspect  of 
the  higher  criticism  will  be  found  in  the  subsequent 
chapters. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  17 

It  appears,  tlierefore,  that  the  aim  of  the  higher  criti- 
cism is  to  find  the  true  solution  of  problems  which 
force  themselves  upon  the  attentive  student.  What- 
ever one  may  think  of  its  results,  its  motive  at  least  is 
good.  The  truth  does  not  always  seem  to  be  pleas- 
ant ;  in  fact  it  is  often  very  grievous  ;  but  nevertheless 
we  perceive  that  it  is  best  as  soon  as  our  eyes  are  open 
to  see,  and  in  the  long  run  it  will  prevail.  It  may  be 
hard  to  give  up  the  Davidic  authorship  of  a  particular 
psalm  ;  but  if  David  did  not  write  it,  there  can  be  little 
use  in  keeping  up  the  illusion. 

The  grief  which  comes  to  many  earnest  minds  from 
the  results  of  Biblical  criticism  is  due  in  large  measure 
to  expectations  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation  which 
never  should  have  been  raised.  People  who  find  them- 
selves troubled  about  these  things  would  do  well  to 
study  somewhat  carefully  the  New  Testament  doctrine 
of  the  Old  Testament."  It  is  often  said  that  the  full 
revelation  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  sets  aside  for  Chris- 
tians only  the  ceremonial  law  of  the  Jews.  But  is  this 
really  all?     Let  us  see. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  begins  with  this  sug- 
gestive utterance:  *' God,  having  of  old  time  spoken 
unto  the  fathers  in  the  prophets  by  divers  portions 
and  in  divers  manners,  hath  at  the  end  of  these  days 


*  Reference  may  be  made  to  such  guides  as  Toy's  "  Quotations  in 
the  New  Testament,"  and  to  an  article  by  Dr.  J.  P.  Peters,  "  Christ's 
Treatment  of  the  Old  Testament,"  J.  B.  L.,  1896,  p.  S/ff. 


1 8  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

spoken  unto  us  in  His  Son,  whom  He  appointed  heir  of 
all  things  .  .  .  having  become  so  much  better 
than  the  angels,  as  He  hath  inherited  a  more  excellent 
name  than  they."  Now  this  writer  distinctly  recog- 
nizes the  fact  that  the  prophets  were  inspired,  that  is, 
that  God  spoke  through  them;  but  he  claims  quite  as 
distinctly  that  the  revelation  through  the  Son  was  a 
superior  revelation.  Hence  it  follows  that  the  revela- 
tion through  the  prophets  was  imperfect,  even  though 
it  was  real. 

But  there  is  higher  authority  than  this,  and  there  is 
no  use  standing  on  the  threshold  when  we  may  go 
fully  into  the  house.  Our  Lord  repeatedly  sets  aside 
laws,  doctrines,  or  morals  of  the  Old  Testament.  On 
what  ground  ?  That  they  were  not  of  God  ?  By  no 
means ;  but  because  they  were  only  temporary  expe- 
dients suitable  for  the  conditions  of  the  times,  but  not 
on  the  plane  of  Christian  righteousness. 

Divorce  is  not  a  ceremonial  matter,  surely;  and  the 
Mosaic  Law  contains  specific  regulations  upon  this 
subject ;  but  our  Lord  set  them  aside,  and  gave  a  law 
which  has  not  yet  been  attained  in  any  Christian 
State.  A  considerable  part  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  consists  of  corrections  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  even 
of  its  most  venerated  part,  the  Decalogue.  The  pro- 
hibitions, "  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  "  Thou  shalt  not  com- 
mit adultery,"  etc.,  do  not  go  far  enough,  according  to 
the  teaching  of  Jesus.     One  may  keep  them  all  and 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W.  19 

yet  be  a  grievous  sinner.  The  lex  talionis^  which  may 
have  been  a  wise  law  for  the  early  Hebrews,  is  dis- 
tinctly set  aside ;  so  is  the  law  to  hate  one's  enemy. 
None  of  these  are  ritual  matters.  In  fact  our  Lord 
does  not  seem  to  have  had  much  to  say  against  the 
ceremonial  law,  and  was  Himself  somewhat  scrupulous 
in  the  observance  of  the  sacred  seasons.  But  His  atti- 
tude shows  that  He  adjudged  the  old  law  to  be  imper- 
fect. Therefore  it  is  not  for  us  to  exalt  the  God- 
inspired  to  a  level  with  the  God-Man,  nor  to  expect  to 
see  as  clearly  in  the  dawn  as  in  the  mid-day.  It  is 
true  that  we  shall  best  understand  the  Son  if  we  know 
the  prophets,  but  the  prophet  cannot  speak  to  us  the 
final  word;  that  was  reserved  for  the  Son. 

Arrogant  as  the  higher  critic  is  often  supposed  to  be, 
he  does  not  stand  forth  to  speak  with  the  voice  of  author- 
ity, though  he  may  speak  with  conviction.  But  the  crit- 
ical student  feels  that  any  problem  which  the  Scriptures 
force  upon  him  is  a  fair  subject  of  investigation.  Never- 
theless it  is  often  claimed  that  the  New  Testament  has 
pronounced  upon  the  literary  questions  which  the  higher 
critic  deals  with  so  freely,  and  that  that  pronounce- 
ment is  authoritative  ;  therefore  to  open  these  ques- 
tions is  impossible  for  the  Christian.  There  are  really 
two  questions  involved  in  this  contention.  Did  the 
New  Testament  pronounce  upon  those  critical  prob- 
lems? And,  if  so,  is  its  judgment  final?  For  com- 
plete treatment  we  should  have  to  examine  the  whole 


20  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

New  Testament  usage.  But  it  will  be  sufficient  to  take 
the  statements  of  our  Lord.  If  His  voice  does  not 
silence  criticism,  no  other  will. 

It  is  well  to  keep  in  mind  that  such  a  study  must  be 
undertaken  with  all  reverence.  The  free  way  in  which 
our  Lord  has  been  dragged  to  the  witness  stand  in  such 
discussions  is  repulsive  in  the  extreme.  Some  whose 
devotion  to  Jesus  Christ  is  greater  than  their  concern 
about  any  critical  question  whatever  repudiate  such  a 
settlement,  whether  it  makes  for  or  against  their  own 
opinions.  But  there  are  many  who  are  sorely  per- 
plexed by  this  matter.  The  acceptance  of  critical 
conclusions  seems  to  require  them  to  set  aside  the 
authority  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  evidence  may  be  over- 
whelming, but  how  can  they  attribute  error  to  Him? 

One's  sympathy  for  those  who  feel  thus  cannot  but 
be  strong.  For  myself  I  am  free  to  say  that  if  I 
believed  that  Jesus  Christ  had  deliberately  and  ad- 
visedly stated  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch,  I 
should  accept  it,  and  that  without  the  nearly  univer- 
sal exception  of  the  account  of  his  death  and  burial 
(Deut.  xxxiv.).  When  one  decides  critical  questions  on 
the  ground  of  authority,  he  must  accept  the  result  as 
a  whole.  There  is  no  use  in  straining  at  gnats  and 
swallowing  camels.  But  did  our  Lord  ever  pronounce 
on  these  questions?  One  may  well  doubt  it,  and  in  a 
case  like  this,  as  in  a  jury  trial,  a  reasonable  doubt  is 
quite  sufficient  to  justify  a  negative  verdict. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  21 

It  will  strike  any  one  who  reads  the  Gospels  with 
such  a  question  in  his  mind  as  singular,  if  our  Lord 
were  concerned  about  settling,  for  instance,  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  that  He  passed  by  such 
good  opportunities  to  settle  once  for  all  a  question 
which  has  sorely  vexed  His  people.^  In  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  where  the  Law  is  referred  to  so  often, 
He  does  not  once  mention  Moses,  but  uses  the  criti- 
cally colorless  phrase,  "  It  was  said."  But  in  some 
other  cases  where  He  refers  to  the  Law  He  simply 
uses  the  term  Moses ;  as,  "  The  gift  that  Moses  com- 
manded" (Matt.  viii.  4);  "  Moses  said  "  (Mark  vii.  10; 
see  also  Matt.  xix.  8  ;  Mark  i.  44).  In  Mark  xii.  26, 
Jesus  asks:  *'  Have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses, 
in  the  bush?"  But  in  the  parallel  passage,  Luke  xx. 
37,  we  read  ''that  the  dead  are  raised,  even  Moses 
showed,  in  the  bush,t  when  he  calleth  the  Lord  the 
God  of  Abraham,"  etc.  The  point  of  the  argument  is 
not  the  authorship  of  Moses,  but  the  action  of  Moses. 
By  calling  Jehovah  the  God  of  Abraham,  Moses  taught 
that  Abraham  was  alive.     This  is  a  much  more  forci- 

*  The  inquiry  is  limited  to  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  as  they  alone 
provide  ample  material  for  the  purpose. 

t  The  insertion  in  the  Revised  Version,  "  \n  the  place  concerning 
the  bush,"  is  unnecessary,  to  say  the  least.  "  Even  Moses  showed 
in  the  bush  "  is  the  correct  rendering.  "  Bush  "  was  the  techni- 
cal name  of  a  section  of  the  Pentateuch.  (See  Art.  "  Bible  "  in 
Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary.) 


22  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

ble  argument  than  the  form  in  Mark,"  and  it  is  fair  to 
assume  that  ''the  book  of  Moses"  is  due  to  the  evan- 
gelist. Is  it  not  likely  that  there  are  other  similar 
cases  ?  t 

In  St.  Luke  Christ  speaks  of  the  Old  Testament 
under  the  names  ''  Moses  and  the  prophets  "  (xvi.  29), 
and  '*  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the  prophets,  and  the 
psalms"  (xxiv.  44).  In  these  cases  it  is  evident  that 
our  Lord  uses  the  term  *'  Moses  "  as  the  convenient, 
accepted,  and  universally  understood  title  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, just  as  He  applies  the  term  "the  prophets" 
to  the  historical  books  (Joshua  to  Kings)  and  to  all  the 
prophetic  books.  Now  if  the  usage  is  to  be  pressed  so 
far  that  when  He  uses  *'  Moses  "  as  a  designation  of  the 
Pentateuch,  He  at  the  same  time  pronounces  it  as  His 
judgment  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  books  so 
designated,  then  we  must  hold  that  all  the  books  called 
prophets  are  really  prophetic  books,  so  that  Joshua, 
with  its  long  catalogue  of  cities  assigned  to  the  tribes, 
is  not  a  historical  book,  but  a  prophecy.  Moreover, 
since  He  applies  the  term  ''psalms"  to  the  collection 
of  books  called  the  KetJmbim  or  Hagiographa,  by  the 
same  authority  we  shall  have  to  hold  that  all  the  writ- 
ings in  this  varied  collection,  even  Daniel  and  Chron- 

*  The  parallel  passage  in  Matt.  xxii.  31  has  no  reference  to 
Moses :  "  Have  ye  not  read  that  which  was  spoken  unto  you  by 
God?" 

t  See  Sanday,  "  Bampton  Lectures  on  Inspiration,"  p.  407. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W.  23 

icles,  are  psalms."^     It  appears,  then,  that   the  appeal 
to  our  Lord's  authority  proves  too  much. 

Only  once  does  our  Lord  connect  the  Psalms  with 
David,  and  that  can  only  be  claimed  to  show  the 
Davidic  authorship  of  a  particular  Psalm  (ex.).  There 
are  some  who  might  be  willing-,  on  evidence,  to  believe 
that  no  other  psalm  was  written  by  David.  But  they 
cannot  give  up  the  Davidic  authorship  of  this  psalm. 
The  passage  quoting  Psalm  ex.  is  found  in  all  three 
Synoptics,  Matt.  xxii.  43,  Mark  xii.  36,  Luke  xx.  42, 
and  in  substantially  the  same  words.  If  we  look 
at  the  passages  superficially  it  might  seem  that 
Jesus  proved  that  Christ  was  not  the  Son  of 
David;  it  might  also  be  said  that  He  proved  that 
David  did  not  write  the  Psalm  ;  for  that  is  the  other 
alternative.  Either  David  did  not  call  Christ  Lord, 
or  else  Christ  is  not  David's  son;  these  are  the  two 
horns  of  the  dilem.ma  which  the  critical  Pharisees 
had  to  grapple  with.  Now  our  Lord's  argument  is  not 
based  upon  His  belief  in  the  Davidic  authorship  of  this 

"^  It  is  held  by  many  that  Jesus  does  not  apply  the  terms  prophets 
and  psalms  in  a  general,  but  only  in  a  limited,  sense.  That  is,  by 
"  prophets,"  He  means  only  the  prophetic  books,  and  by  "  psalms," 
only  the  book  of  Psalms.  See  Ryle's  "  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment," p.  i5f.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Old  Testament 
canon  was  finally  fixed  in  the  time  of  Christ ;  yet  it  is  quite  possi- 
ble that  by  "  psalms  "  He  refers  to  the  varied  collection  in  the 
third  part  of  the  Hebrew  canon,  whether  its  limits  were  definitely 
fixed  or  not. 


24  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

Psalm,  but  upon  the  Pharisees'  behef  in  that  opinion."^ 
The  validity  of  the  argument  requires  the  Pharisaic 
assumption  that  David  wrote  the  Psalm,  and  requires 
nothing  else  whatever.f  In  another  case  our  Lord 
quotes  from  a  Psalm,  saying  merely  that  it  is  **in 
the  Scriptures  "  (Matt.  xxi.  42). 

We  observe,  then,  that  our  Lord  uses  precisely  the 
same  terminology  for  the  Scriptures  as  the  people  of 

*See  Peters'  "  Christ's  Treatment  of  the  Old  Testament,"  J.  B. 
L.,  1896,  p.  103. 

tThe  writer  does  not  wish  to  be  understood  here  as  contending 
that  David  was  not  the  author  of  that  Psalm,  but  only  that  the  ev- 
idence for  the  Davidic  authorship  must  be  found  elsewhere  than  in 
our  Lord's  use.  It  may  be  added,  as  a  matter  of  interest,  that 
very  few  modern  critics  ascribe  the  Psalm  to  David.  Even  so 
conservative  a  writer  as  Driver  expresses  his  view  thus  :  "  This 
Psalm,  though  it  may  be  ancient,  can  hardly  have  been  composed 
by  David.  If  read  Wxihowi  praejudicium,  it  produces  the  irresist- 
ible impression  of  having  been  written,  not  by  a  king  with  refer- 
ence to  an  invisible,  spiritual  Being,  standing  above  him  as  his  su- 
perior,but  by  a  prophet  with  reference  to  the  theocratic  king  "  (see 
L.  O.  T.^  p.  384,  note,  where  the  reasons  for  his  conclusion  are 
given  at  length).  Sanday  says,  "A  Psalm  is  quoted  as  David's 
which,  whatever  its  true  date,  it  seems  difificult  to  believe  really 
came  from  him"  ("Inspiration,"  p.  409).  Orelli,  like  Ewald, 
holds  that  the  Psalm  is  Davidic,  in  the  sense  of  belonging  to  the 
Davidic  age,  but  having  David  as  the  subject,  not  as  the  author. 
He  calls  the  Psalm  a  "prophetic  message  to  David"  ("  O.  T. 
Prophecy,"  p.  153).  Bishop  Ellicott's  little  book,  "  Christus  Com- 
probatur,"  is  a  polemic  against  modern  criticism,  the  base  of  his 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  25 

His  time."^'  He  employed  terms  which  are  in  common 
use  still  as  being  convenient.  Modern  critics  speak  oi 
the  Mosaic  Law,  and  of  the  Davidic  Psalms  without 
meaning  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  Law  or 
David  of  the  Psalms.  Our  Lord  might  cite  a  passage 
of  the  Pentateuch  as  a  saying  of  Moses,  without  pro- 
nouncing a  judgment /r6'  or  ^^;/ on  any  critical  ques- 
tion. 

His  custom  in  this  matter  is  the  same  as  in  other 
matters.  In  all  things  connected  with  the  physical  world 
He  uses  the  phraseology  of  His  time.  Not  one  of  the 
great  discoveries  in  any  science,  so  important  for  the 
welfare  of  the  race,  was  ever  hinted  at  by  Him.  He 
rises  out  of  His  generation  only  when  He  deals  with 
things  moral  and  spiritual,  and  then  at  once  we  find 
that  *'  never  man  spake  like  this  man."  It  is  difficult 
to  believe  that  our  Lord  came  into  this  world  to  teach 
things  man  can  find  out  himself.  He  came  to  reveal 
truth  which  was  beyond  man's  natural  powers.  Critical 
and    scientific    questions    were  far  removed  from  the 

attack  being  the  authority  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles.  In  regard 
to  Psalm  ex.  he  argues  that  if  the  author  had  not  been  David,  some 
of  the  Pharisees  would  have  known  it  (p.  I75f.).  This  argument 
assumes  that  the  Jews,  several  hundred  years  after  the  poem  was 
written,  had  absolute  knowledge  as  to  the  author.  But  there  is 
no  ground  to  justify  such  an  assumption. 

*See  Matt.   xix.   7;  xxii.    24;  Mark  x.  4;  xii.    19  (where  the 
Jews  refer  to  the  Law  as  "  Moses"). 


26  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

Sphere  of  His  mission  or  of  His  interest.  Our  Lord 
seems  to  have  avoided  questions  which  did  not  belong 
to  the  sphere  of  His  mission  as  the  Saviour  of  men.  In 
regard  to  things  indifferent,  He  conformed  to  the  usage 
and  thoughts  of  His  time.  Against  John  Baptist's 
protest,  He  insisted  upon  baptism  (Matt.  iii.  Hf.)- 
But  whenever  His  higher  work  was  in  question,  He 
did  not  hesitate  to  take  direct  issue  with  Jewish  tra- 
ditions. 

It  seems  strange,  then, that  any  one  should  couple  the 
divinity  of  Christ  with  a  particular  critical  conclusion. 
Many  people  find  it  perfectly  easy  to  believe  fully  in 
the  Incarnation  and  at  the  same  time  in  the  results  of 
modern  criticism.  To  make  the  Incarnation  depend- 
ent upon  traditional  views  of  the  Scriptures  may  prove 
to  be  building  one's  house  upon  the  sand.  It  is  cer- 
tain that  such  a  dependence  has  often  proved  perilous 
to  faith.  If  one  really  feels  that  criticism  and  the  In- 
carnation are  inseparably  connected,  he  might  come  to 
feel  more  certain  of  the  criticism  than  of  the  Incarna- 
tion, and  so  make  shipwreck  of  his  faith.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  Incarnation  should  be  built  upon  the 
strongest  grounds,  not  upon  the  weakest;  upon  the 
known  facts  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  not  upon 
the  Jewish  critical  conclusions  in  regard  to  the  Old 
Testament. 

The  undivided  Catholic  Church  has  been  wise  enough 
not  to  confuse  unrelated  things.     Her  doctrine  of  the 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  27 

Scriptures  leaves  little  to  be  desired.  The  historic 
creeds  only  require  belief  in  inspiration,  "  who  spake 
by  the  prophets."  The  Sixth  Article  of  Religion  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  wholly  admirable, 
though  it  takes  the  distinctly  Protestant  position  that 
"  Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to 
salvation  :  so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor 
may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any 
man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  the 
Faith."  It  defines  the  limits  of  the  canon,  but  does  not 
pass  judgment  upon  a  single  question  of  the  higher 
criticism. 

Now  it  is  nowhere  read  in  Scripture  that  Moses  is 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  nor  may  it  in  any 
way  be  proved  thereby;  therefore  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship, whether  true  or  false,  is  not  an  article  of  the 
faith.  It  is  nowhere  read  in  Scripture,  nor  may  it  be 
proved  thereby,  that  Isaiah  is  the  author  of  the  whole 
of  the  first  of  the  ''Four  Prophets  the  greater"; 
therefore  it  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man  as  an  ar- 
ticle of  the  faith.  Prof.  Sayce,  in  the  preface  to  his 
recent  "  Early  History  of  the  Hebrews,"  says  that  he 
accepts  whatever  the  Church  holds,  but  that  he  knows 
of  nothing  in  the  Church's  teaching  which  prevents  a 
free  treatment  of  Jewish  history;  and  certainly  he  does 
treat  it  with  a  critical  freedom  that  is  surprising,  in 
view  of  his  many  recent  assaults  on  the  higher  critics. 

The  Anglican  Church  has  done  more  than  merely 


28  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

Stand  out  of  the  way  of  criticism.  This  Ecclesia  docms 
has  spoken  through  the  highest  authority — the  Epis- 
copate of  the  Anglican  Communion.  However  high 
or  low  may  be  one's  ecclesiastical  views,  he  will  highly 
respect  an  utterance  of  the  noble  body  of  Bishops  gath- 
ered in  the  Lambeth  Conference.  This  body,  at  its 
session  in  1897,  issued  this  declaration  /;/  re  the  higher 
criticism  : 

*'  The  critical  study  of  the  Bible  by  competent  schol- 
ars is  essential  to  the  maintenance  in  the  Church  of  a 
healthy  faith.  That  faith  is  already  in  serious  danger 
which  refuses  to  face  questions  that  may  be  raised 
either  on  the  authority  or  the  genuineness  of  any  part 
of  the  Scriptures  that  have  come  down  to  us.  Such 
refusal  creates  painful  suspicion  in  the  minds  of  man}^ 
whom  v/e  have  to  teach,  and  Vvill  weaken  the  strength 
of  our  own  conviction  of  the  truth  that  God  has  re- 
vealed to  us.  A  faith  which  is  always  or  often  at- 
tended by  a  secret  fear  that  we  dare  not  inquire  lest 
inquiry  should  lead  us  to  results  inconsistent  with  what 
we  believe,  is  already  infected  with  a  disease  which 
may  soon  destroy  it.  But  all  inquiry  is  attended  with 
a  danger  on  the  other  side  unless  it  be  protected  by 
the  guard  of  reverence,  confidence,  and  patience.  It 
is  quite  true  that  there  have  been  instances  where  in- 
quiry has  led  to  doubt,  and,  ultimately,  to  infidelity. 
But  the  best  safeguard  against  such  a  peril  lies  in  that 
deep  reverence  whicli  never  fails   to  accompany  real 


THE  MODERX  POINT  OF  VIE  W.  29 

faith.  The  central  object  of  Christian  faith  must  al- 
ways be  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself.  The  test 
which  St.  Paul  gives  of  the  possession  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  being  able  to  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord. 
If  a  man  can  say  with  his  whole  heart  and  soul  that 
Jesus  is  the  Lord,  he  stands  on  a  rock  which  nothing 
can  shake.  Read  in  the  light  of  this  conviction,  the 
Bible,  beginning  with  man  made  in  the  image  of  God, 
and  rising  with  ever-increasing  clearness  of  revelation 
to  God  taking  on  Him  the  form  of  man,  and  through- 
out it  all  showing  in  every  page  the  sense  of  the 
Divine  Presence  inspiring  what  is  said,  will  not  fail  to 
exert  its  power  over  the  souls  of  men  till  the  Lord 
comes  again.  This  power  will  never  really  be  affected 
by  any  critical  study  whatever.  The  report  of  the 
committee  deals,  in  our  judgment,  temperately  and 
wisely  with  the  subject,  and  we  think  all  Christian 
people  will  find  it  worthy  of  careful  consideration." 

Let  the  timid  student  read  also  what  is  said  in  the 
report  of  the  special  committee  on  this  subject  in 
the  Report  of  Conference,  page  63.  As  the  Bishops 
say,  "  If  a  man  can  say  with  his  whole  heart  and 
soul  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  he  stands  on  a  rock  which 
nothing  can  shake."  The  only  question  which  is  vital 
in  critical  results  is  whether  they  are  true  or  false  ; 
and  the  higher  critic  to-day  asks  no  favor  save  a  dis- 
passionate review  of  the  evidence.  By  this  he  is 
quite  willing  that  his  contentions  should  stand  or  fall. 


30  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

In  the  last  chapter  I  shall  try  to  show  that  the 
acceptance  of  the  results  of  criticism  does  not  in- 
terfere with  a  full  belief  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. To  those  who  are  likely  to  be  troubled  by  the 
critical  discussions  in  the  chapters  following,  I  would 
suggest  that  they  read  that  chapter  before  the  others. 

If  one  believe  that  the  result  of  the  higher  critical 
study  of  the  Scriptures  is  an  error,  let  him,  at  all 
events,  not  call  it  a  dangerous  error  without  consid- 
ering the  force  of  the  words  of  Jefferson  that  "error 
is  without  danger  so  long  as  truth  is  left  free  to  com- 
bat it." 


CHAPTER  II. 


(Beneral  arguments  againet  tbe  IPali&it?  of 
Critical  IResuIta. 

THERE  are  certain   considerations  of  a  general 
character  which  are    sometimes  supposed  to 
invalidate  the  results  of  modern  criticism  as 
a  whole.  There  are  three  of  these  which  will  be  briefly 
discussed. 

I.  It  has  again  and  again  been  stated  that  arch- 
aeological discoveries  have  disproved  many  critical 
conclusions,  and  are  likely  to  disprove  a  great  many 
more.  The  critic  is  warned  that  the  spade  is  his 
greatest  enemy,  and  told  to  tremble  before  its  achieve- 
ments. Let  it  be  emphasized  at  the  outset  that  the 
higher  critic  is  in  quest  of  the  truth.  He  has  no 
theory  v/hich  he  is  anxious  to  maintain.  He  has  had 
to  abandon  hosts  of  theories  in  the  course  of  his  in- 
vestigations, and  is  ready  to  abandon  more  as  soon 
as  the  evidence  requires  it.  All  the  light  which 
archaeology  is  able  to  furnish  is  welcome  to  none 
more  than  to  him. 

One  might  ask  then  why  there  has  been  such  a 
vigorous  controversy  between  the  higher  critics  and 


32  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

the  archaeologists.  The  Engh'sh  Sayce  and  the 
German  Hommel  have  been  unsparing-  in  their  attacks 
on  criticism,  and  the  other  side  has  not  been  alto- 
gether silent,  though,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  the 
critics  have  preserved  a  more  equable  and  seemly 
temper.  The  critics  have  been  entirely  ready  to  ac- 
cept the  facts  discovered  by  archaeologists,  but  they 
have  not  always  been  willing  to  accept  the  conclusions 
drawn  from  those  facts  by  the  archaeologists. 

The  critics  are  often  charged  with  building  big  theo- 
ries upon  a  scanty  basis  of  fact ;  but  they  could  scarcely 
exceed  the  feats  of  some  archaeologists  in  this  partic- 
ular. It  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  there  is 
any  necessary  conflict  between  archaeology  and  crit- 
icism. These  two  disciplines  are  naturally  allies,  and 
criticism  must  look  to  archaeology  as  an  aid,  and,  it 
may  be,  a  corrective.  But  it  must  be  remembered 
that  archaeological  facts  have  to  be  interpreted  as  well 
as  critical  facts,  and  there  is  inevitably  considerable 
difference  of  opinion  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

Hommel,  in  the  preface  to  his  ''Ancient  Hebrew 
Tradition,"''^  thus  indicates  his  belief  in  the  overthrow 
of  critical  conclusions :   "The  monuments  speak  with 

*I  quote  from  the  English  translation  published  by  S.  P.  C.  K., 
1897.  It  has  been  stated  in  print  {Expository  Tz'jnes,  January- 
February,  1898;  The  Natwn,  Ociohtr  20,  1897;  see  also  Driver 
L.  O.  T.^  p.  xvii.,  note)  that  the  translation  is  in  many  places  inac- 
curate, and  the  inaccuracies  in  the  interest  of  greater  conservatism. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  33 

no  faltering  tongue,  and  already  I  seem  to  see  signs  of 
the  approach  of  a  new  era,  in  which  men  will  be  able 
to  brush  aside  the  cobweb  theories  of  the  so-called 
*  higher  critic'  of  the  Pentateuch,  and,  leaving  such 
old-fashioned  errors  behind  them,  attain  to  a  clearer 
perception  of  the  real  facts  "  (p.  viii ).  I  have  read 
Hommel's  book  through  with  a  great  deal  of  interest 
and  profit,  but  I  have  not  seen  a  single  fact  which  in 
the  least  invalidates  the  sober  conclusions  of  the 
higher  criticism,  and  not  much  to  disprove  even  the 
conclusions  of  the  most  radical  scholars.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  have  seen  much  which  supports  critical  results. 

Prof.  Sayce  endeavored  to  make  his  *'  Higher  Crit- 
icism and  the  Verdict  of  the  Monuments,"  pubHshed 
in  1894,  a  via  media  between  the  higher  critics  and  the 
apologists.  He  repeatedly  takes  the  former  to  task 
for  their  arrogant  assumptions,  and  declares  that  the 
spade  has  set  many  of  their  theories  at  naught.  But  he 
falls  into  error  by  failing  to  make  proper  distinctions. 
By  higher  critics  he  means  only  the  most  radical 
school,  who  base  their  conclusions  too  largely  upon 
mere  conjecture.  The  great  body  of  modern  higher 
critics  do  not  belong  to  this  class,  but  only  go  as  far 
in  reconstructive  theories  as  there  are  facts  to  warrant. 
Sayce  himself  is  a  higher  critic  of  this  class. 

One  of  the  best  known  and  ablest  critics  of  this  class 
in  the  English-speaking  world  is  Prof.  Driver,  of  Oxford. 
His  "  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 


34  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

ment"  was  first  published  in  1891.  This  work  at  once 
became  a  classic  in  Old  Testament  study.  The  sixth 
and  enlarged  edition  appeared  in  1897,  The  work  is 
well  known  to  be  the  production  of  a  thorough-going 
higher  critic  of  the  modern  school.  Yet  the  writer  was 
careful  not  to  allow  his  theories  to  run  beyond  his  facts. 
Now  Driver  reviewed  Sayce's  book  referred  to  above 
in  the  Contemporary  Review  (March,  1894,  p.  408fif.), 
and  declared  that  if  he  accepted  every  fact  alleged  by 
Sayce,  it  would  only  require  him  to  modify  three  minute 
and  unimportant  statements  in  his  Introduction.*  This 
fact  is  cited  because  it  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  way 
in  which  the  monuments  have  demolished  critical  con- 
clusions or  made  them  old-fashioned.  We  can  scarcely 
rest  content,  however,  with  general  conclusions,  but 
will  look  at  some  of  the  detailed  instances  in  which 
archaeology  and  criticism  have  come  into  contact. 

*  It  may  be  well  to  state  in  Driver's  own  words  just  what 
these  three  points  are  :  "  I  should  have  to  refer  Gen.  x.— not 
back  to  Moses,  but — to  a  later  author  than  I  had  supposed  to  be 
necessary;  I  should  have  to  follow  Prof.  Cheyne  in  placing  the 
short  prophecy  of  Obadiah  in  the  post-exilic  period;  and  instead  of 
attributing  Jer.  l.-li.  58  to  a  prophet  who  wrote  *  no  very  long 
time  before  the  fall  of  Babylon  '  (b  C.  538),  I  should  have  to  assign 
it  to  a  prophet  who  wrote  definitely  during  the  reign  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, which  ended  B.C.  561.  In  no  other  respect  is  a  single  argu- 
ment or  conclusion  in  my  work  affected  unfavorably  by  the  facts  which 
Prof.  Sayce  has  adduced,  while  in  several  cases  they  are  materially 
confirmed  by  them."  See  also  L.  O.  T.",  p.  xviii.,  quoted  below  (p.  44), 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  35 

The  main  object  here  is  to  show  that  archaeology 
has  not  banished  criticism,  and  is  not  likely  to.  Hence, 
it  is  necessary  to  dwell  chiefly  on  the  cases  in  which 
archaeology  does  not  substantiate  the  traditional  view 
of  the  Scriptures.  It  would  be  much  pleasanter  to 
treat  the  other  side,  to  show  how  this  science  has  con- 
firmed Biblical  statements.  But  the  object  in  view 
would  not  thereby  be  gained. 

Yet  the  opportunity  must  be  taken  to  say  that  the 
discoveries  of  Oriental  archaeology  have  been  of  ines- 
timable value  to  Biblical  study.  Facts  which  stood 
alone,  and  not  always  unchallenged,  have  been  mar- 
vellously confirmed.  For  example,  in  the  twentieth 
chapter  of  Isaiah  we  are  told  that  Sargon,  the  king  of 
Assyria,  sent  Tartan  to  take  Ashdod.  Until  the 
cuneiform  monuments  were  dug  up  and  deciphered, 
this  was  all  that  was  known  of  Sargon.  Naturally, 
there  were  some  who  were  unduly  influenced  by  the 
silence  of  such  records  of  Assyrian  history  as  were 
available,  and  doubted  whether  there  was  any  such 
king.  But  we  have  now  at  hand  inscriptions  describ- 
ing the  campaigns  of  this  king,  and,  ^mong  them,  a 
description   of  this  very  campaign  against   Ashdod."^ 

*A  translation  of  Sargon's  account  of  his  campaign  may  be 
found  in  Schrader's  "  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Testa- 
ment," II.,  90  f.  In  his  annals  for  his  eleventh  year  (711  B.C.)  we 
find  the  brief  record,  "War  against  Azuriof  Ashdod  and  conquest 
of  that  town." 


36  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

Such  discoveries  are  always  a  boon  to  the  critical  stu- 
dent of  the  Bible. 

But  the  discoveries  have  often  required  us  to  correct 
the  statements  in  the  Bible,  even  while  in  the  main  they 
confirmed  them.  After  the  disaster  to  his  army  in  the 
west,  B.C.  701,  *'  Sennacherib,  the  king  of  Assyria,"  we 
read  in  II.  Kings  xix.  36f.,  ''returned  and  dwelt  at 
Nineveh.  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  he  was  worship- 
ping in  the  house  of  Nisroch  his  god, that  Adrammelech 
and  Sharezer  smote  him  with  the  sword;  and  they  es- 
caped into  the  land  of  Ararat.  And  Esar-haddon,  his 
son,  reigned  in  his  stead."  Now  it  is  not  distinctly 
stated  that  the  assassination  of  the  king  took  place 
immediately  upon  his  return  to  Nineveh;  but  it  is  a 
natural  inference,  and  was  generally  so  understood  un- 
til the  monuments  furnished  the  necessary  correction — 
in  this  case  a  correction  not  of  the  Biblical  statement, 
but  of  the  received  interpretation  of  the  statement. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  Sennacherib  was  not 
murdered  for  at  least  twenty  years  after  his  campaign. 
Moreover,  there  is  no  known  Assyrian  deity  called 
Nisroch,  and  Sayce  himself  has  pointed  out  that  the 
order  of  events  is  quite  reversed  here,  Hezekiah's  sick- 
ness (II.  Kings  XX.)  having  been  ten  years  earlier  than 
Sennacherib's  campaign  (H.  C.  M.,  p.  446). 

Another  interesting  correction  which  we  are  able  to 
make  from  the  monuments  of  Assyria  is  in  connection 
with  the  fall  of  Samaria  in  723  B.C.     In  11.  Kings  xvii. 


THE  MODERN"  POINT  OF  VIEW.  37 

3ff.  we  read  that  Shalmanezer  invaded  Israel  and  re- 
duced King  Hoshea  to  servitude.  The  passage  goes 
on  to  describe  Hoshea's  rebellion,  and  the  three  years' 
siege  of  Samaria,  which  ended  in  the  capture  of  the  city. 
Except  in  verse  3,  the  name  of  the  Assyrian  king  is  not 
mentioned ;  the  title  used  is  simply  "  the  king  of  Assyria." 
This  leads  naturally  to  the  conclusion  that  Shalmanezer 
was  the  king  who  reduced  Samaria.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
we  now  know  from  the  monuments  that  Shalmanezer  was 
succeeded  by  Sargon  during  this  siege,  and  that  it  was 
the  latter  who  led  the  captive  Israelites  to  Assyria. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  figures  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament is  Melchizedek,  king  of  Salem,  who  blessed 
Abraham  after  his  successful  campaign  against  Ched- 
orlaomer  and  his  allies,  and  to  whom  Abraham  paid  a 
tithe  of  the  booty  (Gen.  xiv.  i8ff.)  We  have  little 
knowledge  of  this  personage.  He  appears  and  disap- 
pears very  strangely  and  without  any  apparent  relation 
to  the  events.  It  will  scarcely  seem  strange,  therefore, 
that  the  historicity  of  this  personage  has  been  often  dis- 
puted. We  only  know  that  he  v/as  both  priest  and 
king.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  contains  an  elab- 
orated version  of  the  story:  "  being  first,  by  interpretii- 
tion,  king  of  righteousness,  and  then  also  king  of  Sa- 
lem, which  is,  king  of  peace;  without  father,  without 
mother,  without  genealogy,  having  neither  beginning 
of  days  nor  end  of  life,  but  made  like  unto  the  Son  of 
God,  abideth  a  priest  continually  "  (vii.  2f.). 


38  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

Now  it  is  true  that  Melchizedek  entered  into  the 
Jewish  Messianic  conception  (Psahn  ex.  4;  Heb.  v.  6); 
but  it  is  uncertain  on  what  material  the  writer  of  the 
Epistle  based  his  statements,  so  far  as  they  go  beyond 
Genesis.  It  maybe  doubted  whether  he  does  not  am- 
plify the  original  narrative  from  his  conceptions  of  the 
Messiah.  At  all  events,  the  statement  that  *' he  was 
without  beginning  of  days  or  end  of  life  "  could  not 
apply  to  the  original  Melchizedek  any  more  than  the 
statement  that  "he  was  without  father  or  mother." 

But  Prof.  Sayce  has  repeatedly  asserted  that  he  has 
vindicated  the  historical  character  of  Melchizedek 
(H.  C.  M.,  p.  177).  One  must  indeed  wish  that  he  had 
been  able  to  make  this  matter  clear  ;  but  before  ac- 
cepting his  conclusions  we  must  examine  the  evidence 
upon  which  his  vindication  is  based. 

In  one  of  the  famous  Tell-el-Amarna  letters,  Abd- 
hiba,  called  by  Sayce  Ebed-Tob,  vassal  king  of  Jerusa- 
lem, thus  writes  of  himself:  "Behold,  this  country 
Jerusalem  ;  neither  my  father  nor  my  mother  gave  it 
to  me  ;  the  strong  arm  of  the  king  gave  it  to  me."  *'^ 
The  meaning  of  this  passage  is  apparently  plain  ;  the 
prince  has  occasion  repeatedly  to  protest  his  adher- 
ence to  his  Egyptian  overlord.  The  basis  of  his 
loyalty  is  the  fact  that  his  throne  was  not  inherited, 
but  (like  that  of  the   Jewish  Zedekiah)  the  gift  of  the 

*  Letter  No.  180.  I  quote  these  letters  from  Winckler's  transla- 
tion, "The  Tell-el-Amarna  Letters,"  New  York  and  Berlin,  1896. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


39 


king-.  In  other  words,  he  had  been  placed  on  the 
throne  by  the  king-  of  Egypt  ;  therefore,  there  was  the 
best  reason  for  his  loyalt)'.  He  says,  accordingl}^,  in 
another  message  to  his  sovereign  (Letter  No.  i8i)  : 
"  It  is  slander  which  they  have  heaped  upon  me.  Be- 
hold, I  am  no  prince,  I  am  a  deputy  of  my  lord,  the 
king  ;  behold,  I  am  an  ofHcer  of  the  king  ;  I  am  one  who 
brings  tribute  to  the  king.  Neither  my  father  nor  my 
mother,  but  the  strong-  arm  of  the  king  established  me 
over  my  father  s  tcrritoryy  (Italics  here  and  below 
mine.)  Still  again,  he  says  :  "  Some  one  has  slan- 
dered me  before  my  lord,  the  king  (saying),  'Abd-hiba 
has  revolted  from  his  lord,  the  king.'  Behold,  neither 
my  father  nor  my  mother  appointed  me  in  this  place. 
The  strong  arm  of  the  king  inaugurated  me  in  my 
father's  territory.  Why  (then)  should  I  commit  an 
offence  against  my  lord,  the  king?"  (Letter  No.  179). 
This  last  passage  looks  quite  different  in  Sayce's 
translation:  ''Behold,  neither  my  father  nor  my 
mother  have  exalted  me  in  this  place  ;  the  prophecy 
(or,  perhaps,  arm)  of  the  mighty  king-  has  caused  me 
to  enter  the  house  of  my  father."  Upon  such  a  trans- 
lation Sayce  builds  his  theory  thus  :  "  The  mighty 
king  is  distinguished  from  the  king  of  Eg3'pt  "  :  this 
king  was  the  king  of  Salem  ;  he  was  without  father  or 
mother  ;  because  the  prophecy  had  made  him  a  king, 
he  was  a  priest  ;  and  because  Abd-hiba  (or  Ebed-Tob) 
was  such,  Melchizedek,  the   priest-king   of  Salem,  was 


40  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

a  historical  personage  (H.  C.  M.,  p.  175).  With  such 
processes  as  this,  it  would  be  possible  to  prove  or  dis- 
prove anything.  Winckler's  translation  is  quite  cor- 
rect. ''Mighty"  probably  qualifies  arm,  not  king; 
there  is  no  such  word  as  prophecy  or  priest  in  the  let- 
ters ;  and  even  from  Sayce's  rendering  it  is  clear  that 
Abd-hiba's  father  had  reigned  in  Jerusalem  before  him. 
How  else  could  he  say  that  "the  king  [who  is  clearly 
the  king  of  Egypt]  established  me  over  my  father's 
territory  "  .'' 

But  even  if  Sayce's  translation  were  correct,  it  would 
be  far  from  "  vindicating  the  historical  character  of 
Melchizedek."  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
Melchizedek  did  not  inherit  his  throne  ;  and  this  poor 
Egyptian  vassal,  begging  piteously  for  troops  to  save 
his  city  from  the  enemy,  and  perpetually  pleading  his 
innocence  of  the  intrigues  with  which  he  is  charged,  is 
a  very  different  personage  from  the  priest-king  who 
pronounces  the  blessing  of  'El  'Elyon  .upon  the  vic- 
torious Abraham.  The  story  of  Melchizedek  may  or 
may  not  be  historical  ;  but  archaeology  has  not  yet 
furnished  anything  to  aid  the  higher  critic  in  deter- 
mining the  question." 

*  Hommel's  treatment  is  quite  different  from  Sayce's.  The  for- 
mer holds  that  the  narrative  in  Gen.  xiv.  I7ff.  is  composite,  one 
source  saying  that  the  king  of  Sodom  came  out  to  meet  Abraham, 
the  other  that  it  was  Melchizedek,  the  king  of  Salem.  The  part 
about  the  king  of  Salem  is  a  late  interpolation.     Melchizedek  re- 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  41 

This  case  has  been  dwelt  upon  to  show  how  frail  a 
weapon  is  confidently  relied  upon  to  overthrow  critical 
results.  It  may  seem  an  extreme  case  ;  but  there  are 
enough  others  of  a  like  kind.  The  evidence  relied 
upon  to  prove  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch 
is  quite  as  weak.  It  has  been  denied  that  Moses  could 
have  written  the  Pentateuch,  because  such  a  literary 
production  could  not  have  come  from  the  early  age  of 
Israel,  an  age  lacking  literary  culture  or  models.  This 
argument  is  indeed  weak,  but  not  weaker  than  that  by 
which  it  is  controverted. 

The  contention  is  made  that  we  have  these  Tell-el- 
Amarna  letters,  many  of  them  written  in  Canaan  about 
1400  B.C.;  we  know  that  there  was  a  vast  literature  in 
Babylonia  and  Egypt  before  this  time,  and  that  letters 
were  exchanged  between  the  kings  of  these  empires  in 
the  fifteenth  century  B.C.;  there  was  a  city  in  Canaan 
called    Kiriath-Sepher — "Book-town"  —  or,    probably, 

fused  to  take  any  of  the  booty,  lest  Abraham  should  claim  the 
credit  of  enriching  him;  that  is,  Melchizedek,  not  Abraham,  is  the 
speaker  in  v.  22f.  This  is  quite  a  different  story.  Hommel  holds 
that  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  knew  a  version  of 
the  Melchizedek  story  which  contained  an  added  clause,  such  as, 
"who  had  not  received  the  kingdom  from  his  father  and  mother." 
He  gives  the  translation,  "arm  of  the  mighty  king"  (not,  however, 
*'  prophecy"),  but  holds  that  the  mighty  king  was  an  "earthly  po- 
tentate," that  is,  the  king  of  the  Hittites  ("Ancient  Hebrew  Tra- 
ditions "  p.  I49ff.).  But  the  context  shows  that  the  king,  whether 
mighty  or  not,  was  the  king  of  Egypt, 


42  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

Kiriath-Sopher — "  City  of  the  Scribe."  Now,  these 
are  facts  which  no  higher  critic  for  a  moment  doubts. 
But  how  far  do  they  go  to  prove  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch  ?  They  do  not  give  any  support 
whatever  to  the  behef  that  he  did  write  it,  and  they  do 
not  go  very  far  to  show  that  it  was  even  possible  for 
Moses  to  be  the  author. 

For  how  was  Moses  to  get  access  to  all  this  litera- 
ture of  Babylonia  ?  How  were  the  freed  slaves,  living 
as  wandering  nomads  in  the  wilderness,  to  come  into 
contact  with  this  culture?  If  Moses  had  any  literary 
culture  at  all,  and  the  writer  does  not  doubt  that 
he  had,  he  got  it  at  the  Egyptian  court  ;  and  all 
that  we  know  about  that  is  in  the  Bible.  Archae- 
ology has  so  far  failed  to  add  a  single  particle  of 
knowledge  on  this  subject.  Still,  Sayce  does  not  scru- 
ple to  say :  "  The  archaeological  facts  support  the  tra- 
ditional rather  than  the  so-called  '  critical '  view  of  the 
age  and  authority  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  tend  to  show 
that  we  have  in  it  not  only  a  historical  monument 
whose  statements  can  be  trusted,  but  also  what  is  sub- 
stantially a  work  of  the  great  Hebrew  legislator  him- 
self" ("  Patriarchal  Palestine,"  p.  iv.).  The  fact  is,  that 
archaeology  has  not  yet  produced  a  single  fact  which 
has  any  legitimate  bearing  upon  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

We  may  well  consider  the  force  of  some  words 
spoken  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Peters  at  the  Church  Congress 


THE  MODERX  POINT  OF  VIEW.  43 

at  Norfolk  in  1896.  He  was  speaking-  about  the  argu- 
ment from  the  civihzation  which  must  have  prevailed 
in  Palestine.  "  The  difficulty  that  we  encounter  is 
this  :  that  while  we  find  a  people  before  the  Hebrews 
that  possessed  a  civilization  ;  while  v/e  find  a  people 
in  Egypt  that  possessed  a  civilization  ;  while  we  find 
a  people  in  Babylonia  that  possessed  a  civilization  ; 
while  we  find  a  people  in  the  north  of  Syria  that  pos- 
sessed a  civilization  ;  while  we  find  a  people  in  Asia 
Minor  that  possessed  a  civilization — we  have,  unfor- 
tunately, no  records  of  a  similar  civilization  among  the 
Hebrews.  It  is  precisely  that  for  which  we  must  look. 
We  are  not  yet  in  a  position  to  say  what  they  did 
know,  nor  what  they  could  know."  It  need  only  be 
added,  to  guard  against  possible  misconception,  that 
Dr,  Peters  here  refers  to  the  conditions  among  the 
Hebrews.  This  statement  is  true,  that  so  far  modern 
archaeology  has  not  thrown  a  single  ray  of  light  upon 
early  Hebrew  civilization. 

It  is  a  matter  of  great  regret  that  archaeological  light 
on  the  Bible  has  so  far  all  come  from  outside  of  Pales- 
tine. There  are  letters,  it  is  true,  which  were  written 
from  Palestine  to  Egypt,  but  from  a  period  before  the 
Conquest.  The  spade  has  accomplished  wonderfully 
great  results  in  Assyria,  Babylonia  and  Egypt,  but 
almost  no  digging  has  be,en  undertaken  in  Palestine. 
Work  has  been  done  at  Jerusalem,  but  so  far  has  not 
produced  results  useful  in  critical  study.     Lachish  was 


44  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

partly  excavated,  but  the  results  have  been  disappoint- 
ing, as  in  these  cases  no  significant  inscriptions  have  been 
found,*  or  anything  else  which  throws  much  light  on 
Hebrew  history.  Can  it  be  that  the  cities  of  Palestine 
did  not  contain  such  imperishable  literary  monuments 
as  Egypt  and  Babylonia?  No;  there  mi?st  be  priceless 
treasures  under  the  soil  of  Palestine,  which  will  help  to 
clear  up  perplexing  difficulties  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Why  has  so  much  money  and  labor  been  expended  in 
excavating  in  other  countries,  and  so  little  in  the  Ploly 
Land  itself?  No  one  more  earnestly  longs  for  the 
light  which  the  spade  may  disclose  than  the  higher 
critic. 

This  section  may  fittingly  conclude  with  a  statement 
from  Driver:  *'  The  attempts  to  refute  the  conclusions 
of  criticism  by  means  of  archaeology  have  signally 
failed.  The  archaeological  discoveries  of  recent  years 
have  indeed  been  of  singular  interest  and  value;  they 
have  thrown  a  flood  of  light,  sometimes  as  surprising 
as  it  was  unexpected,  upon  many  a  previously  dark  and 
unknown  region  of  antiquity.  But,  in  spite  of  the  in- 
genious hypotheses  which  have  been  framed  to  prove 
the  contrary,  they  have  revealed  nothing  which  is  in 
conflict  with  the  generally  accepted  conclusions  of  the 
critics  "  (L.  O.  T.^  p.  xviii.).     What  archaeology  may 

*One  tablet  was  found  by  Mr.  Bliss  at  Lachish,  but  it  belonged, 
strange  to  say,  to  the  Tell-el-Amarna  collection,  and  had  no  bear- 
ing on  the  Hebrews. 


THE  MODERN-  POLVT  OF  VIEW.  45 

discover  in  the  future,  it  is  idle  to  guess;  but  if  that 
noble  science  shall  reveal  anything-  which  makes  criti- 
cal opinions  untenable,  it  is  safe  to  predict  that  the 
critics  will  be  the  first  to  acknowledge  it,  and  the 
warmest  in  their  welcome  of  the  new  facts. 

II.  There  is  another  general  ground  upon  which  it  is 
often  claimed  that  the  results  of  the  higher  criticism 
are  invalidated — the  disagreement  among  the  critics 
themselves.  Prof.  Green,  of  Princeton,  has  for  years 
never  wearied  of  assailing  the  modern  criticism  of  the 
Old  Testament.  The  divergency  of  view  of  the  critics 
has  been  one  of  his  favorite  weapons  of  attack.  He 
has  been  followed  in  this  course  by  many  others.  Let 
the  higher  critics  get  together,  they  say,  and  reach  a 
unanimity  of  opinion;  when  they  offer  us  the  results 
about  which  they  are  thus  agreed,  it  will  be  time 
enough  for  us  to  consider  whether  they  are  to  be  ac- 
cepted or  not.  It  will  be  well  for  every  student  of 
Old  Testament  criticism  to  consider  carefully  the  force 
of  this  argument. 

Now  difference  of  opinion  may  be  parallel  or  succes- 
sive, that  is,  the  difference  of  opinion  may  be  among 
critics  of  successive  generations,  or  among  critics  of 
the  same  date.  At  present,  only  the  disagreement 
among  contemporaries  is  to  be  considered.  It  must  be 
confessed  that  the  value  of  expert  testimony — and  the 
testimony  in  question  is  clearly  of  that  character — 
does  depend  in  part  upon  unanimity  of  opinion,  at  least 


46  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

its  value  to  the  one  who  is  not  an  expert  does.  If  two 
experts  testify  in  court,  and  their  opinions  are  hope- 
lessly at  variance,  the  value  of  the  testimony  is  nil  to  the 
jury,  whatever  it  may  be  to  others;  so  if  it  is  true  that 
critical  opinion  is  hopelessly  divided  against  itself,  that 
kingdom  cannot  stand.  The  only  question,  therefore, 
is  whether  the  critics  are  so  at  variance  as  to  invalidate 
their  results. 

No  one  who  has  read  largely  in  this  field  can  for  a 
moment  doubt  that  there  is  a  great  difference  of  opin- 
ion among  the  higher  critics.  It  would  be  easy  to  fill 
a  much  larger  volume  than  the  present  with  illustra- 
tions of  this  fact.  But  in  all  fairness  we  must  admit 
that  before  we  draw  any  conclusions  as  to  the  effect 
of  these  differences,  we  must  consider  their  character. 
Such  a  consideration  seems  never  to  have  entered  into 
the  calculation  of  those  who  use  the  divergent  views  to 
bring  criticism  into  contempt.  The  point  to  consider  is 
whether  the  difference  is  about  matters  that  are  vital 
or  not.  An  examination  of  all  the  vast  mass  of  illus- 
trations which  could  be  gathered  would  show  that,  as 
a  rule,  the  differences  of  opinion  are  not  about  matters 
that  are  of  real  importance.  About  the  main  conten- 
tions of  criticism  the  verdict  is  unanimous,  however 
great  variety  of  opinion  there  may  be  in  minor  points. 
A  few  illustrations  will  make  this  clear.  The  number 
could  be  multiplied  indefinitely. 

Take  the  question  of  the  Pentateuch.     The  burning 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W.  47 

question  (considering  now  only  literary  problems)  is 
this:  Was  the  Pentateuch  written  or  compiled  by 
Moses,  or  some  other  ?  Any  one  who  finds  insuperable 
difficulties  in  the  assumption  of  the  Mosaic  authorship 
finds  himself  at  once  in  the  large  company  of  modern 
critics.  And  modern  criticism  is  absolutely  unanimous 
in  its  verdict  that  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form 
originated  in  an  age  long  subsequent  to  Moses." 

The  agreement  of  the  critics,  indeed,  goes  much  fur- 
ther than  this.  It  is  held  by  all  that  the  Pentateuch 
(excluding  Deuteronomy)  is  the  result  of  the  compila- 
tion mainly  of  three  documents,  the  earliest  of  which 
was  written  about  Soo  B.C.;  and  in  the  main  the  critics 
agree  as  to  the  lines  of  cleavage.  Sometimes  it  is  ad- 
mitted to  be  difficult  or  impossible  to  make  more  than 
a  tentative  separation,  but  this  difficulty  does  not  alter 
the  unanimity  of  opinion  that  a  separation  must  be 
made  before  the  original  form  is  reached.  There  is 
considerable  difference  of  view  as  to  the  date  of  these 
primary  documents.  The  Jahvistic  narrative  is  dated 
from  853  B.C.  to  750  B  c  ;  but  the  traditionalist  will  find 
no  more  satisfaction  in  one  of  these  dates  than  in  the 
other.  It  matters  but  little  to  him  what  the  date,  if  the 
writing  be  taken  away  from  the  age  of  Moses.  The 
agreement  of  the  critics  is  complete  on  the  main  ques- 
tion. 

*  There  is,  however,  Mosaic  material  incorporated  in  the  Penta- 
teuch.    See  p.  151. 


48  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

If  we  take  the  analysis  of  the  book  of  Isaiah,  the 
same  result  is  reached.  The  vital  question — again 
considering  only  literary  problems,  as  there  is  indeed 
a  more  vital  question  than  this,  which  will  be  consid- 
ered later — is  whether  all  the  prophecies  in  that  book 
are  from  the  pen  of  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz,  or  whether 
some  of  them  came  from  other  prophets.  Unless  one 
holds  that  the  book  is  a  unit,  there  is  little  consolation 
in  considering  whether  the  parts  which  belong  to 
other  prophets  than  Isaiah  are  to  be  divided  into  many 
parts  or  not.  There  is  no  modern  critic  to-day  who 
holds  to  the  unity  of  this  book.  He  may  believe  that 
cc.  xl-lxvi.,  commonly  called  the  second  Isaiah,  is  a 
single  prophecy  or  a  collection  of  prophecies  from  many 
voices,  but  he  holds — and  all  his  fellows  agree  with 
him — that  these  prophecies  belong  to  the  exilic  period 
or  later.  The  verdict  of  criticism  is  again  unanimous 
in  regard  to  the  main  question. 

There  is  yet  considerable  difference  of  opinion  in  re- 
gard to  the  date  of  the  so-called  Priest-code,  of  which 
more  will  be  said  in  a  subsequent  chapter.  Some  still 
adhere  to  the  view  of  the  late  Prof.  Dillmann  that  it 
belongs  to  the  latter  part  of  the  pre-exilic  age;  others, 
and  they  are  fast  getting  to  be  a  large  majority,  hold 
to  the  post-exilic  origin  of  this  writing.  One  may  be 
in  great  doubt  which  date  will  ultimately  prevail,  but 
he  may  be  sure  that  this  document  will  never  again  be 
placed  in  the  age  of  Moses, 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  4^ 

As  a  general  thing  the  greatest  difference  of  opinion 
appears  in  the  minute  analysis,  where  confessedly  the 
data  are  often  not  sufficient  for  more  than  tentative 
results.  It  often  happens  that  there  is  unanimity  of 
opinion  in  regard  to  the  smallest  points  because  the 
ground  of  the  analysis  is  sufficient.  Thus  in  the  story 
of  the  Flood  the  last  few  words  of  Gen.vii.  16,  are  unan- 
imously assigned  to  J,  the  symbol  for  the  Jahvistic 
writer,  for  in  the  few  words  '*  and  Jahveh  shut  him  in  " 
— only  three  words  in  Hebrew — there  are  two  decisive 
indications  of  J  :  the  name  Jahveh,  and  the  anthropo- 
morphic conception  of  God.  But  in  other  places  the 
grounds  are  less  sure,  and  critical  opinion  consequently 
divergent.  Thus  while  every  modern  student  of  the  Old 
Testament  recognizes  Cheyne's  masterful  work  on 
Isaiah,  many  will  be  very  slow  to  accept  the  analysis 
he  has  made  in  his  Introduction  and  in  the  Polychrome 
Bible.  Ingenious  and  scholarly  as  his  conclusions 
show  him  to  be,  he  has  carried  his  opinions  far  beyond 
the  reliable  data,  and  many  question  marks  will  have 
to  be  used  in  dealing  with  his  work. 

III.  Sometimes  still  more  hope  for  the  fall  of  criti- 
cism is  found  in  the  divergent  views  as  one  era  of 
criticism  gives  way  to  another.  It  is  frequently  stated 
that  this  criticism  is  only  a  wave,  which  will  soon  pass 
away.  One  generation  reaches  results  radically  differ- 
ent from  those  of  another,  and  soon  the  whole  thing 
will  pass  away,  like  the  Tubingen  criticism  of  the  New 


50  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

Testament.  This  kind  of  objection  is  not  so  easily 
treated,  because  it  appeals  to  the  future.  It  leaves  the 
inquirer  in  the  condition  of  the  Jews  of  Jehoiakim's 
time,  when  "  Hananiah  the  prophet  "  said  that  the  yoke 
of  Babylon  would  be  broken  within  two  years,  and 
Jeremiah  the  prophet  said  it  would  not  (Jer.  xxviii.). 
There  seemed  to  be  little  to  do  but  wait  for  the  two 
years  to  expire.  Still  it  would  have  been  possible  to 
determine  the  question,  if  the  people  had  considered 
these  things  :  With  which  of  these  prophets  is  the  wish 
most  likely  to  be  the  father  of  the  thought  ?  Which 
has  shown  himself  in  the  past  the  more  accurate  in 
foreseeing  the  course  of  events?  Upon  what  ground 
is  the  assertion  of  each  based  ? 

So  perhaps  the  means  are  not  lacking  for  the  one 
who  is  able  to  discern  the  signs  of  the  times  to  know 
whether  Old  Testament  criticism  is  likely  to  be  so 
short-lived  as  many  seem  to  suppose  and  wish.  The 
writer  ventures  to  express  the  hope  that  the  present 
predominance  of  literary  criticism  in  Old  Testament 
study  may  soon  give  way  to  more  important  matters. 
The  great  object  of  Old  Testament  study  for  the  Chris- 
tian is  the  discovery  of  moral  and  spiritual  truth.  But 
the  literary  problems  must  be  solved  before  such  study 
can  secure  its  rightful  place,  because  it  must  be 
built  upon  a  solid  foundation.  The  history  of  Israel 
and  the  history  of  the  Jewish  religion  must  be  re- 
built on    a  reconstructed    basis  before    there   will   be 


THE  MODERN  POWT  OE  VIEW,  51 

a  sure  ground  for  the  highest  criticism  of  all.  But 
the  prediction  may  be  safely  ventured  that  this  recon- 
struction will  go  on  to  completion,  and  to  general 
acceptance,  and  that  we  shall  never  drop  back  to  the 
basis  of  a  half  century  ago. 

For  the  present.  Old  Testament  criticism  rests  upon 
an  entirely  different  basis  from  that  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, which  quickly  passed  away.  The  New  Testa- 
ment criticism  was  in  the  main  subjective,  and  the 
moment  acute  scholars  began  to  investigate  the  alle- 
gations of  the  Tubingen  school  their  hopeless  weak- 
ness appeared,  and  they  have  given  place  to  a  more 
sober  conclusion.  But  the  Old  Testament  criticism  rests 
upon  a  solid  basis  of  facts.  Every  point  in  its  proo-res- 
sive  development  has  been  contested  by  the  ablest  schol- 
arship with  the  result  that  many  who  had  entered  the 
list  as  assailants  have  come  out  on  the  other  side.  The 
late  Prof.  Franz  Delitzsch  was  a  notable  instance.  For 
years  he  stood  against  the  tendency  of  his  age.  But 
always  studying  as  a  scholar,  the  apologist  never  cret- 
ting  entirely  the  upper  hand,  in  his  ripe  old  age  the 
result  of  his  own  investigations  compelled  him  to  ac- 
cept the  main  results  against  which  he  had  so  lon<T 
contended. 

The  higher  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been 
a  good  while  in  the  field.  The  first  complete  analysis 
of  the  Pentateuch  was  made  by  Astruc  in  1753,  with  a 
conservative  interest.    There  have  been  many  changes 


52  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

from  that  day  to  this,  but  all  in  the  direction  of  a  pro- 
gressive development.  Very  likely  the  pendulum  will 
now  and  again  swing  too  far,  but  it  will  quickly  come 
back.  There  have  been  ample  time  and  ample  effort 
to  show  that  the  results  of  criticism  are  invalid  ;  but  this 
has  not  yet  been  done.  No  one  has  changed  his  views 
backwards,  and  the  acceptance  of  these  results  has  gone 
on  with  notable  rapidity,  until  to-day  the  number  of 
scholars  who  adhere  to  the  traditional  views  is  very 
small.  The  opponents  have  been  active,  but  they  have 
failed  to  stop  the  inevitable  course  of  events.  It  is 
well  that  we  turn  our  attention  to  the  basis  of  facts 
upon  which  its  conclusions  rest,  and  see  whether  it 
has  sufificient  to  justify  its  verdicts.  For  there  is  no  sign 
on  the  horizon  which  the  most  far-sighted  can  see  to 
justify  the  belief  that  the  higher  critics  of  the  Old 
Testament  have  labored  in  vain. 


CHAPTER   III. 


^be  Ibeyateucb. 

I.    THE   BOOK   OF   DEUTERONOMY. 

THE  oldest  important  subject  of  critical  investi- 
gation is  the  Pentateuch.  In  modern  discus- 
sions,'however,  we  find  in  place  of  the  term 
Pentateuch,  Hexateuch — meaning  the  first  six  books 
of  the  Bible;  for  the  phenomena  found  in  the  Pentateuch 
occur  also  in  Joshua;  and  the  book  of  Joshua  makes 
a  fitter  ending  for  the  first  period  of  Hebrew  history 
than  Deuteronomy.  The  Hexateuch  will  first  engage 
our  attention.  So  much  has  been  written  on  this  sub- 
ject that  we  cannot  hope  to  produce  anything  new;  but 
for  the  sake  of  completeness  this  matter  must  be  taken 
up.  The  investigation  is  best  begun  with  this  oldest 
problem  of  Old  Testament  criticism;  for  in  this  field 
the  results  seem  most  assured.  Taking  the  simplest 
subject  first,  we  will  consider  the  origin  of  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy. 

To  engage  in  such  investigation  in  the  right  spirit, 
we  must  be  students,  and  not  apologists;  we  may  have 
strong  convictions  in  favor  of  or  against  the  Mosaic 
authorship,  but  not  so  held  that  they  will  not  yield  to 
evidence.     We  are  after  facts,  and  a  priori  assumptions 


54  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

are  too  apt  to  prevent  the  recognition  of  facts  when  v/e 
meet  them.  With  minds  not  unduly  prejudiced  we 
wish  to  ascertain  what  facts  we  have  which  bear  upon 
the  origin  of  this  great  book,  and  then  the  meaning  of 
the  facts  we  discover.  Our  work  will  not  be  exhaustive, 
but  will  be  sufficient.^ 

In  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign  (621  B.C.),  King 
Josiah  gave  directions  to  repair  the  temple  so  as  to 
restore  it  suitably  for  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  which 
had  been  interrupted  during  the  long  period  of  his  im- 
mediate predecessors,  Manasseh  and  Amon.  Shaphan 
was  sent  by  the  king  with  a  message  to  Hilkiah  the 
high  priest,  and  returned  with  a  statement  about  the 
progress  of  the  repairs,  and  then  added  :  "  Hilkiah  the 
priest  has  delivered  me  a  book  "  (II.  Kings  xxii.  10). 
Hilkiah's  announcement  to  Shaphan  was,  "■  I  have 
found  the  book  of  the  law  in  the  house  of  Jahveh " 
{ib.,  V.  8).     What  book  was  this  ) 

It  appears,  in  the  first  place,  to  have  been  a  small 
book.  Shaphan  was  sent  to  the  temple  on  an  errand 
for  the  king.  He  stopped  long  enough  at  the  temple 
to  read  the  book  (?A,  v.  8);  when  he  returned  he  read 
the  book  aloud  to  the  king  (v.  10).  Hilkiah  was  sum- 
moned, and,  along  with  others,  sent  to  Huldah  the 
prophetess  to  ask  her  what  the  king  should  do.     Now 

*  Reference  may  be  made  to  an  article  by  the  writer  on  "  The 
Origin  and  Character  of  Deuteronomy,"  published  in  the  Biblical 
IVorld  oi  April  1898. 


THE  MODERN-  POINT  OF  VIEW,  55 

all  this  at  least  seems  to  have  taken  place  in  one  day; 
certainly  the  book  was  read  twice  in  one  day. 

In  an  ordinary  Hebrew  Bible  the  Pentateuch  occu- 
pies 350  pages  ;  this  cannot  be  read  in  less  than  twelve 
hours.  To  read  it  aloud  would  take  at  least  twenty 
hours. ^  Now  Shaphan  would  scarcely  tarry  on  an 
errand  for  the  king  long  enough  to  read  such  a  large 
book,  and  it  could  not  have  been  read  twice  in  one  day. 
The  book  of  Deuteronomy  occupies  sixty-three  pages, 
and  could  be  read  aloud  in  about  three  hours  and  a 
half.  The  law  proper  in  Deuteronomy  (chaps,  xii.- 
xxvi.)  occupies  twenty-three  pages  and  could  be  read 
in  one  hour,  or  a  little  more.  This  part,  therefore,  is 
about  as  large  a  book  as  the  conditions  warrant. 
Driver  holds  that  at  least  chaps,  v.-xxvi.,  xxviii.  must 
have  been  in  the  book  which  was  read  to  the  king,t 
though  others  have  adhered  to  the  strictly  legal  part, 
chaps,  xii.-xxvi.  Even  the  part  assumed  by  Driver 
could  be  read  in  about  two  hours. 

In  the  second  place,  we  have  to  consider  the  charac- 
ter of  the  book  which  was  found.  The  Reformation 
ought  to  show  this,  because  it  was  Josiah's  attempt  to 
put  this  law  into  effect.     When  Josiah  sent  to  inquire 

*  Kittel  estimates  twenty-three  and  a  half  hours  as  the  least  time 
in  which  it  could  be  read  "  at  a  moderately  quick  rate  "  ("  History 
of  the  Hebrews,"  I.,  p.  59). 

t  See  his  "  Deuteronomy,"  Introd.,  p.  65  ;  so  Addis,  "  Documents 
of  the  Hexateuch,"  Vol.  H. 


56  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

of  Huldah,  he  did  so  because  he  feared  the  awful  conse- 
quence of  the  violation  of  the  new  law:  "Great  is  the 
wrath  of  Jahveh  that  is  kindled  aq-ainst  us,  because 
our  fathers  have  not  hearkened  unto  the  words  of  this 
book"  (xxii.  13). 

Now,  if  one  asks  what  part  of  the  Law  declares  em- 
phatically God's  punishment  for  disobedience  to  its 
precepts,  the  answer  Is  plainly  Deuteronomy.  Hul- 
dah's  message  to  the  king  consists  largely  of  Deuter- 
onomic  phrases  :  ''They  have  forsaken  me,  and  have 
burned  incense  to  other  gods,  that  they  might  pro- 
voke me  to  anger  with  all  the  work  of  their  hands  " 
(v.  17).  The  king  made  a  covenant  to  keep  Jehovah's 
*' commandments,  and  his  testimonies,  and  his  stat- 
utes, with  all  his  heart,  and  all  his  soul'' (xxiii.  3): 
these  also  are  Deuteronomic  phrases. 

The  first  step  of  the  Reformation  was  to  burn  the 
vessels  that  were  used  for  Baal,  Asherah  and  the  host 
of  Heaven  (v.  4),  and  in  general  Josiah  destroyed 
everything  pertaining  to  the  worship  of  foreign  deities; 
especially  he  destroyed  every  altar,  including  those  at 
the  high  places,  except  that  at  the  temple;  that  is,  Jo- 
siah put  into  effect  the  law  that  sacrifice  can  be  offered 
only  at  the  temple  in  Jerusalem.  The  Law  in  ExodUh 
distinctly  provides  for  altars  at  such  places  as  may  be 
convenient  (xx.  24ff.);  but  Deuteronomy  strictly  pro- 
hibits  altar  or  sacrifice  at  any  place  save  at  the  central 
sanctuary  (xii.  5ff).      It  is  perfectly  plain  that  whatever 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  IV.  57 

this  book  of  the  Law  was,  the  reformation  of  Josiah  was 
an  attempt  to  put  into  practice  the  prescriptions  of 
Deuteronomy.'^ 

Five  years  before  this  time  Jeremiah  had  begun  his 
career  as  a  prophet.  Why  the  king-  consulted  Huldah, 
who  is  not  otherwise  known,  rather  than  Jeremiah,  it 
is  not  easy  to  say.  But  it  is  certain  that  this  new  book 
of  the  Law  produced  a  great  impression  upon  the  young 
seer.  Moved  by  the  command  of  God,  he  travelled 
about  among  the  cities  of  Judah  preaching  the  new 
Law  (Jer.  xi.  1-8).  The  passage  just  cited,  in  which 
this  part  of  Jeremiah'^  life  is  described,  is  little  more 
than  a  collection  of  Deuteronomic  phrases.  If  one 
reads  Jeremiah  attentivel}^,  he  will  find  Deuteronomic 
phrases  and  ideas  scattered  all  through  his  book.f 

The  evidence  all  points  to  one  conclusion,  that  the 
book  of  the  Law  found  by  Hilkiah  was  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy,  in  whole  or  in  part.  There  follows, 
then,  this  inference:     In  the  year  621  B.C.,  Deuteron- 

*  Driver  gives  a  list  of  parallel  passages  which  show  the  depend- 
ence of  Josiah's  reforms  upon  Deuteronomy.  He:  supposes  such 
passages  as  these  to  have  chietly  impressed  the  king  (Deut.  vi.  4f , 
I4f.;  xii.  2-7;  xvi.  2 if.;  xviii.  9-15;  xxviii ;  "Deuteronomy,"  p. 
xlv.,  note.  See  also  "  Scriptures,  Hebrew  and  Christian,'  I  ,  p.  490 
ff.,  where  the  history  of  the  Reformation  is  told  in  connection  with 
the  laws  commanding  the  reforms,  all  the  laws  coming  from  Deut- 
eronomy. 

t  See  the  list  of  parallel  passages  in  Deuteronomy  and  Jeremiah 
in  Driver's  "  Deuteronomy,"  p.  xciii. 


58  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

omy  was  not  an  inseparable  part  of  a  book  of  the 
Law  like  the  Pentateuch,  but  was  itself  called  "  the 
book  of  the  law"  (11.  Kings  xxii.  8),  "the  book  of  the 
covenant"  (xxiii.  2),  **  the  words  of  this  covenant" 
(Jer.  xi.  2  ff.).  This  fixes  the  latest  possible  date  of 
the  book,"^  the  terminus  ad guein.  Can  we  also  fix  the 
terminus  a  quo  ?  If  we  read  again  the  account  of 
Josiah's  reformation,  we  are  struck  with  the  evident 
fact  that  he  had  never  heard  of  this  book  before,  and 
in  fact  the  people  to  whom  it  was  read  were  equally 
ignorant  of  it.  If  the  book  had  been  lost,  it  had  disap- 
peared so  long  ago  that  no  knowledge  of  its  contents 
had  survived. 

But  the  book  itself  contains  many  expressions  which 
throw  light  upon  the  time  of  its  origin.  First  of  all  is 
the  fact  that  the  last  chapter  contains  an  account  of 
the  death  of  Moses.  It  is  generally  conceded  that  this 
passage  (chap,  xxxiv.)  has  been  added  by  a  later  hand, 
though  we  cannot  help  admiring  the  stricter  consis- 
tency of  those  Vi^ho,  accepting  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch  on  the  basis  of  external  authority, 
held  fast  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  this  passage,  too. 
But  if  a  whole  section  like  this  is  to  be  placed  in  the 
post-Mosaic  age  on  purely  internal  evidence,  why  may 

*  If  only  the  legal  part  of  Deuteronomy  was  found  by  Hilkiah, 
the  narrative  portions  would  be  subsequent  additions.  Whether 
the  reign  of  Josiah  is  the  latest  date  for  the  whole  book  in  its 
present  form  is,  therefore,  still  a  matter  of  doubt. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  59 

not  other  parts,  and,  if  need  be,  the  whole  book,  be 
assigned  to  the  same  period  for  like  reasons  ?  And 
there  are  reasons  for  doing-  so  which  it  is  not  easy  to 
resist. 

The  book  opens  with  the  statement  that  *'  Moses 
spoke  these  words  unto  all  Israel  on  the  other  side  of 
the  Jordan."  As  Moses  is  stated  to  have  spoken 
these  words  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  the  writer  must 
have  been  in  the  land  west  of  the  Jordan.  This  could 
not  have  been  written,  therefore,  before  the  Conquest. 
We  find  the  same  expression,  **  on  the  other  side  of 
Jordan,"  used  for  the  east  of  the  Jordan  also  in  i.  5, 
*'  on  the  other  side  of  Jordan,  in  the  country  of 
Moab"  ;  also  in  iii.  8;  iv.  41,  46,  47,  49.  In  some 
cases  the  explanatory  *'  eastward "  is  added.  The 
same  usage  is  regularly  found  in  other  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch,  and  in  the  following  places  in  Joshua, 
where  the  standpoint  is  indisputably  the  region  west  of 
the  Jordan:  i.  15;  ii.  10;  vii.  7;  ix.  10;  xii.  i;  xiii.  8; 
xxii.  4  ;  xxiv.  8. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  same  expression  is  used  for 
the  west  of  the  Jordan  in  these  passages  :  Deut.  iii.  20, 
25  ;  xi.  30,  in  speeches  of  Moses  which  are  said  to  have 
been  spoken  in  the  land  of  Moab,  hence  the  use  is  ap- 
propriate ;  also  in  Josh.  v.  i  ;  xii.  7  (with  the  addition 
"  westward  ")  ;  ix.  i  (where  the  place  is  further  de- 
fined, so  as  to  avoid  the  natural  inference  that  east  of 
the  Jordan  was  meant).    It  would  seem  clear,  therefore, 


60  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

either  that  Deuteronomy  was  not  written  until  after 
the  Conquest,  or  that  these  passages  are  later  inser- 
tions. 

There  are  several  expressions  in  the  book  which 
point  clearly  to  the  same  conclusion.  "  The  sons  of 
Esau  .  .  .  destroyed  them  [the  Horites]  from  be- 
fore them,  and  dwelt  in  their  stead  ;  as  Israel  did  unto 
the  land  of  his  possession,  which  Jahveh  gave  unto 
them  "  (Deut.  ii.  12).  **  The  land  of  his  possession  "  is 
the  country  west  of  the  Jordan  ;  hence  that  land  was 
in  the  possession  of  Israel  when  those  words  were 
written.  A  similar  statement  is  found  in  iv.  38 : 
Jahveh  brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt  ''  to  drive  out  na- 
tions from  before  thee  greater  and  mightier  than  thou, 
to  bring  thee  in,  to  give  thee  their  land  for  an  inheri- 
tance, as  at  this  day."  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  this 
could  have  been  said  before  Canaan  was  occupied  by 
the  Hebrews. 

Again,  we  read  that  *'Jair,  the  son  of  Manasseh, 
took  all  the  regions  of  Argob  .  .  .  and  called 
them,  even  Bashan,  after  his  own  name,  Havvoth-jair, 
unto  this  day"  (iii.  14).  This  statement  is  presumably 
based  upon  Num.  xxxii.  41.  But  a  son  of  Manasseh 
could  not  have  lived  in  the  Mosaic  age.  Jair  is  men- 
tioned in  I.  Chron.  ii.  22  as  the  possessor  of  twenty- 
three  cities  in  the  land  of  Gilead;  he  is  there  called  the 
son  of  Segub,  who  was  a  grandson  of  Machir,  the  son 
of  Manasseh.     But  in  Judges  x.  3ff.,  we  read  that  Jair, 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  6l 

the  Gileadite,  was  one  of  the  judges,  and  the  thirty 
cities  in  the  land  of  Gilead  which  belonged  to  his  sons 
were  "called  Havvoth-jair  unto  this  day."  If  we  ad- 
mit that  Moses  or  a  contemporary  might  call  Jair  a 
son  of  Manasseh,  he  could  not  have  confused  Gilead 
and  Bashan.*  The  statement  in  Judges  can  be  har- 
monized with  that  in  Numbers  only  on  the  hypothesis, 
highly  probable  on  other  grounds,  that  the  conquest 
of  Gilead  was  not  completed  until  the  period  of  the 
Judges.  Further,  the  expression  "unto  this  day,"  which 
occurs  in  this  verse  and  elsewhere  in  Deuteronomy, 
would  scarcely  be  used  by  one  who  was  contemporary 
with  the  events  described. 

In  iv.  45f.,  we  read  that  Moses  spoke  this  law  before 
the  children  of  Israel  ''when  they  came  forth  out  of 
Egypt,  beyond  Jordan  ...  in  the  land  of  Sihon, 
whom  Moses  and  the  children  of  Israel  smote,  when 
they  came  forth  out  of  Egypt."  The  writer  makes  no 
distinction  between  the  time  of  the  Exodus  and  the 
time,  thirty- eight  years  later,  when  the  land  of  Sihon 
and  of  Og  was  conquered.  It  is  not  easy  to  suppose 
that  Moses,  or  any  one  else  in  his  age,  could  have  been 

*  In  Deuteronomy  the  places  called  Havvoth-jair,  it  should  be 
noted,  are  in  Bas/ian ;  in  Numbers,  as  in  Judges,  these  are  in 
Gilead.  Furthermore,  it  is  stated  in  Deuteronomy  iii.  4ff.  that  this 
region  of  Argob  was  taken  by  Moses.  Driver  supposes  iii.  1 4  to  be  a 
late  interpolation  designed  to  harmonize  Deuteronomy  with  Num- 
bers. 


62  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

SO  unmindful  of  the  perspective  of  time.  A  much  later 
writer  could  easily  have  done  so.  ''  The  phrase  '  when 
they  came  forth  out  of  Egypt,' "  says  Driver  ("  Deuter- 
onomy," p.  8i),  ''must  have  sprung  from  a  time  when 
the  forty  years  ii?  the  wilderness  had  dwindled  to  a 
point." 

It  is  stated  frequently  in  Deuteronomy  that  Moses  is 
addressing  the  very  ones  who  came  forth  out  of 
Egypt,  whereas  we  are  also  expressly  told  that  all  the 
adult  generation  (i.  35ff )  had  died  during  the  v/ander- 
ings  in  the  wilderness  :  "Jahveh  made  not  this  cove- 
nant [that  is,  that  made  in  Horeb  thirty-eight  years 
before]  with  our  fathers,  but  with  us,  even  us,  who 
are  all  of  us  here  alive  this  day"  (v.  2f.) ;  "I  spake 
not  with  your  children  which  have  not  known,  and 
which  have  not  seen  the  chastisement  of  Jahveh,  your 
God  " — going  on  to  recite  the  overthrow  of  Pharaoh, 
of  Dathan  and  Abiram — **but  your  eyes  have  seen  all 
the  great  work  of  Jahveh  which  he  did  "  (xi.  2ff.;  xxix. 
2ff.,  et  passini). 

The  men  addressed  by  Moses  are  said  to  be  the 
same  ones  who  had  stood  under  the  mountain,  when 
the  mountain  burned  with  fire  (iv.  loff.),  though  this 
event  took  place  directly  after  the  Exodus.  It  is  much 
easier  to  suppose  that  a  later  writer  could  have  made 
such  an  identification  than  that  a  contemporary  could 
have  done  so.  The  matter  is  not  easily  disposed  of 
by  supposing  that  many  of  the  people  who  were  with 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  63 

Moses  in  the  land  of  Moab  had  been  little  children  at 
the  time  of  the  Exodus  ;  for  the  covenant  was  not 
made  with  the  children,  but  with  the  adults,  and  cer- 
tainly the  children  did  not  stand  under  the  burning- 
mountain  to  enter  into  the  covenant. 

The  law  of  the  landmark  shows  clear  traces  of  an 
age  lon^  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan  :  "  Thou  shalt 
not  remove  thy  neighbor's  landmark,  which  they  of  old 
time  have  set,  in  thine  inheritance"  (xix.  14).  The  men 
of  old  time  who  had  set  the  landmarks  were  obvi- 
ously the  Israelites  who  had  seized  and  settled  the 
country.  We  may  compare  Prov.  xxii.  28 — 
"  Remove  not  the  ancient  landmark, 
Which  thy  fathers  have  set." 

The  word  rendered  above  '*  they  of  old  time  "  is  used 
in  Lev.  xxvi.  45,  Psalm  Ixxix.  8,  of  the  ancestors  of  the 
Israelites. 

The  post-Mosaic  age  is  seen  in  many  other  laws,^.^., 
"  and  the  officers  [who  are  mustering-  the  forces  for 
battle]  shall  say  unto  the  people,  What  man  is  there 
that  hath  built  a  new  house,  and  hath  not  dedicated 
it  1  let  him  go  and  return  to  his  house,  lest  he  die  in 
the  battle,  and  another  man  dedicate  it"  (xx.  5); 
*'  When  thou  buildest  a  new  house,  then  thou  shalt 
make  a  battlement  for  thy  roof,  that  thou  bring  not 
blood  upon  thine  house,  if  any  man  fall  from  thence  " 
(xxii.  8).  These  laws  could  not  have  originated  during 
Israel's  nomadic  life. 


64  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

In  xix.  iff.  Moses  directs  the  people  to  appoint  three 
cities  of  refuge  in  their  land  when  they  shall  have  com- 
pletely subdued  it;  and  in  case  their  border  is  enlarged 
they    are    to    appoint    three    additional    cities.     But 
in    iv.    4iff.  we  are  told  that  Moses  himself  appointed 
three    cities    of    refuge    on   the    east    of    the    Jordan. 
Neither  Moses  nor  a    contemporary  could  have  said 
this;  for  in  Num.  xxxv.  Qff.  Moses  directs  that  after  the 
Israelites  have  taken  possession  of  Canaan,  they  shall 
appoint  six  cities  of  refuge,  three  on  each  side  of  the  Jor- 
dan.    In  Josh.  XX.  ']{.  the   six  cities  are  named  as  ap- 
pointed by  the  people  under  Joshua's  direction,  and  the 
three  named  for  the  east  of  the  Jordan  are  identical  with 
those  said  in  Deuteronomy  to  have  been  appointed  by 
Moses.     It  is  needless  to  multiply  instances.     These 
are    enough   to  show   that   certainly    many    parts    of 
Deuteronomy  indicate  a  date  subsequent  to  the  time  of 
the  great  law-giver. 

Suppose,  now,  we  read  the  book  to  see  what  impres- 
sion it  makes  as  to  authorship.  Is  there  any  internal 
evidence  which  tends  to  show  that  Moses  was  the 
author  ?  The  book  is  on  the  face  of  it  a  collection  of 
addresses  delivered  by  Moses  to  the  people  of  Israel 
after  their  conquest  of  Transjordanic  Palestine,  and 
before  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan,  with  some  historical 
notes  and  introductions.  Everywhere  in  the  narrative 
portion — thirty-six  times  in  all — Moses  is  spoken  of  in 
the  third  person.     The  book  seems  on  the  face  of  it  to 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  65 

be  the  production  of  one  who  undertook  to  preserve  the 
last  discourses  of  Moses  along  with  certain  connected 
events,  including  his  death  and  burial.  Thus  the  book 
begins:  "  These  are  the  words  which  Moses  spoke  unto 
all  Israel  beyond  Jordan  in  the  wilderness";  in  other 
places  we  read:  "  This  is  the  law  which  Moses  set  be- 
fore the  Israelites"  (iv.  44);  ''Moses  called  unto  all 
Israel,  and  said  unto  them  "  (v.  i);  "Moses,  the  man  of 
God,  blessed  the  children  of  Israel  before  his  death  " 
(xxxiii.  i);  "Moses  commanded  us  a  law  "  (xxxiii.  4) — 
surely  Moses  could  not  have  written  these  last  two  ex- 
pressions. We  cannot  avoid  the  natural  inference 
from  these  facts  by  supposing  that  Moses,  like  Cassar, 
speaks  of  himself  in  the  third  person  ;  for  everywhere 
in  the  speeches  he  uses  the  first  person  of  himself  and 
the  second  person  for  the  people.  From  v.-i  toxxvii.  I 
the  name  of  Moses  is  not  once  found.  The  book  has 
no  more  the  form  of  a  work  of  Moses  than  the  Gospels 
of  a  compilation  by  our  Lord,  or  the  Acts  that  of  a  work 
by  St.  Paul  or  St.  Peter. 

In  harmony  v/ith  this  conclusion  is  the  retrospective 
character  of  the  book.  In  some  of  the  places  cited 
above  it  appears  as  if  the  author  were  looking  back 
through  a  considerable  space  of  time  to  the  Mosaic 
age.  There  are  many  other  expressions  which  show 
a  similar  point  of  view:  "We  took  the  land  at  that 
time  out  of  the  hand  of  the  two  kings  of  the  Amorites 
that  were  beyond   Jordan"  (iii.  8);  but  by  Moses  this 


66  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

would  have  been  spoken  of  as  a  very  recent  event. 
The  bedstead,  or,  more  probably,  the  sarcophagus,  of 
Og,  was  still  preserved  in  Rabbah  of  the  Ammonites 
(iii.  ii);  "I  commanded  you  at  that  time"  (iii.  i8) — 
said  to  the  Transjordanic  tribes  after  they  had  taken 
possession  of  Gilead  and  Bashan.  The  expression  ''at 
that  time"  is  used  in  Hebrew  for  an  undefined  distant 
period,  either  in  the  past  or  future,  and  we  find  it  so 
used  frequently  in  this  book. 

But  there  are  two  or  three  passages  which  make  it 
impossible,  without  great  violence,  to  hold  that  Moses 
wrote  the  whole  of  Deuteronomy.  For  we  are  told 
that  he  wrote  certain  parts  of  the  book — a  statement 
which  precludes  his  authorship  of  the  whole.  *'  So 
Moses  wrote  this  song  the  same  day,  and  taught  it  to 
the  Israelites  "  (xxxi.  22);  but  we  are  not  told  what  the 
song  is,  unless  it  is  part  of  xxxii.  1-43,  which,  however, 
has  an  introduction  and  superscription  of  its  own.  In 
the  latter  (xxxii.  44)  it  is  stated  that  Moses  and  Joshua 
spoke  the  song  in  the  ears  of  the  people  ;  in  harmony 
with  this,  the  command  to  write  the  song  ("  write  ye  this 
song  for  you, "xxxi.  19),  is  in  the  plural.  The  song,  more- 
over, is  a  review  of  the  history  of  Israel  as  a  disobedient 
nation.  Again  we  read:  "  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and  de- 
livered it  unto  the  priests,  the  sons  of  Levi  "  (xxxi.  9); 
*'  When  Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of 
this  law  in  a  book  "  (ib.,  24).  Elsewhere  Moses,  jointly 
with  the  elders,  directed  the  people  to  write  very  plainly 


THE  MODERN-  POINT  OF  VIEW.  67 

the  Law  upon  great  stones  covered  with  plaster  on  the 
very  day  they  should  cross  the  Jordan,  and  to  set  up 
these  stones  upon  Mount  Ebal  (xxvii.  1-4,  8). 

Surely  Josiah  and  those  who  were  concerned  with 
him  in  the  publication  of  this  Law  had  no  idea  that  they 
were  dealing  with  a  Mosaic  composition,  or  the  name 
of  the  great  law-giver  would  have  been  used  to  give  it 
additional  sanction.  In  all  the  references  to  the  new 
book  of  the  Law  in  Kings  and  Jeremiah,  the  name  of 
Moses  is  not  mentioned,  except  in  a  passage  manifestly 
due  to  the  compiler  of  Kings  (IL  Kings  xxiii.  25). 
Yet  Moses  in  this  time  was  indisputably  looked  upon 
as  one  of  the  greatest  of  God's  saints  in  the  past.  (See 
Jer.  XV.  I.) 

Would  that  we  could  stop  our  investigation  at  this 
point  !  The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  might  then  be  re- 
garded as  a  composition  in  its  present  form  made  long 
after  Moses'  time,  but  consisting  chiefly  of  his 
speeches,  partly  exhortations  to  obey  the  laws,  and 
partly  the  laws  themselves.  But  if  we  resolve  to  fol- 
low the  evidence  as  far  as  it  goes,  we  cannot  stop  at 
this  point,  for  the  evidence  does  not.  Some  laws  have 
already  been  cited  which  are  part  of  the  work  ascribed 
to  Moses,  but  which  betray  a  later  age.  The  law  con- 
cerning the  king  (xvii.  i4fT.)  is  of  this  character.  A 
law  which  shows  such  connection  with  the  rule  of  Sol- 
omon and  his  successors  cannot  easily  be  assigned  to 
the  Mosaic  age,  even  making  reasonable  allowance  for 


63  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

anticipatory  legislation.  Moreover,  if  this  law  were  in 
existence,  why  does  Samuel,  and  Jehovah,  too,  regard 
the  request  of  the  Israelites  for  a  king  as  sinful  rebel- 
lion ?  (I.  Sam.  viii.)  In  xxviii.  36,  in  spite  of  the  fu- 
ture tenses,^"  an  existing  king  seems  to  be  presupposed. 
But  the  chief  law  which  has  been  with  most  confi- 
dence assigned  to  a  post-Mosaic  date  is  that  of  the 
central  sanctuary.  In  Deuteronomy  this  law  is  em- 
phasized again  and  again.  It  stands  at  the  very  fore- 
front of  the  Deuteronomic  code.  The  essential  parts 
are  here  given.  "  You  shall  completely  destroy  all 
the  places  where  the  nations  which  you  shall  drive 
out  have  served  their  gods,  upon  the  high  mountains 
and  upon  the  hills,  and  under  every  green  tree  ;  and 
you  shall  break  down  their  altars,  and  dash  in  pieces 
their  pillars,  and  burn  their  Asherim,  .  .  .  But 
unto  the  place  which  Jahveh  your  God  chooses  from 
all  your  tribes  to  put  His  name  ;  His  habitation  shall 
you  seek,  and  thither  shalt  thou  f  come  :  and  thither 
you  shall  bring  your  burnt  offerings,  and  your  sacri- 

*  "  Jahveh  will  bring  thee  and  thy  king  whom  thou  settest  over 
thee  unto  a  nation,"  etc. 

tOne  of  the  unsolved  puzzles  of  Deuteronomy  is  the  frequent 
change  from  the  singular  to  the  plural.  Steuernagel  has  used  this 
variation  as  a  basis  for  the  analysis  of  the  book,  holding  that  the 
"  thou  "  sections  are  older  than  the  "you"  sections.  Das  Deuteron- 
omium,  in  Nowack's  "  Hand  Kommentar  vun  A.  T.";  see  also  Ad- 
dis, "  Documents  of  the  Hexateuch,"  II.,  p.  i  iff.  The  analysis  on 
this  basis  is  far  from  satisfactory. 


THE  MODERX  POI.VT  OF  VIE  IV.  69 

fices,  and  your  tithes,  and  the  heave  offering  of  your 
hand,  and  your  vows,  and  your  free-will  offerings,  and 
the  firstlings  of  your  herd  and  of  your  flock  :  and  there 
you  shall  eat  before  Jahveh  your  God.  .  .  .  Take 
heed  to  thyself  lest  thou  offer  thy  burnt  offerings  in 
every  place  that  thou  seest  ;  only  in  the  place  which 
Jahveh  chooses  in  one  of  thy  tribes,  there  shalt  thou 
offer  thy  burnt  offerings"  (xii.  2ff.,  I3f.). 

This  law  was  meant  to  abolish  the  high  places.  But 
the  high  places  were  not  abolished  until  Josiah's  time, 
and  there  is  not  a  single  protest  against  their  use  until 
the  time  of  Hezekiah.  We  might  indeed  say  that 
disobedience  of  a  law  does  not  necessarily  prove  its 
non-existence  ;  but  we  shall  find  but  a  poor  refuge  in 
that  negation.  For  we  have  to  consider  not  only  the 
fact  of  the  disobedience  of  a  law  that  is  central  in  the 
code,  but  also  the  absolute  silence  concerning  it.  It  is 
not  merely  the  disobedience  by  the  mass  ofthe  people, 
but  by  the  godliest  souls  that  existed  between  Moses 
and  Josiah.  In  the  book  of  Kings,  which  obviously 
was  not  compiled  before  the  exile,  and  which  is  written 
from  the  Deuteronomic  point  of  view,  we  find  the  con- 
stant lament  that  even  the  best  lyings,  who  walked 
after  God  like  David  their  father,  still  had  this  blemish, 
that  they  sacrificed  in  the  high  places. 

Gideon  offered  a  sacrifice  under  the  oak  which  was 
in  Ophrah  by  direction  of  the  messenger  of  Jehovah, 
and  built  an  altar  there  which  was  still  standing  at  the 


70  HIE   CLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

time  the  book  of  Judges  was  compiled  (Judges  vi. 
iQff.,  24)  ;  then  at  God's  command  he  built  another 
altar  to  Jehovah  on  the  top  of  the  stronghold,*  and 
offered  a  burnt  offering  upon  it  {ib.,  25).  Micah  the 
Ephraimite  may  not  be  regarded  as  a  typical  saint 
even  of  the  early  days  of  Israel.  It  may  not  seem 
strange  therefore  that  out  of  the  refunded  money  he 
had  stolen  he  made  a  graven  image  and  set  up  a  sanc- 
tuary of  his  own  ;  but  it  does  seem  strange  that  the 
Levite  who  was  the  priest  of  this  place  was  Jonathan  the 
grandson  of  Mosest  {ib.,  chaps,  xvii.,  xviii).  The  same 
Levite  afterwards  became  priest  of  the  sanctuary  in  Dan. 
That  Samuel  stands  out  among  the  greatest  of  the 
great  men  of  Israel's  history,  no  one  will  question. 
But  Samuel,  the  man  of  God,  sacrificed  at  such  places 
as  suited  his  purpose.  Before  the  second  battle  of 
Ebenezer,  he  offered  a  burnt  offering  at  Mizpah  (I. 
Sam.  vii.  9),    and  Jehovah  responded  to  his  appeal  ; 

*  In  accordance  with  the  ideas  of  the  times,  the  altar  was  built 
upon  the  highest  point  available.  It  may  be  that  this  is  a  duplicate 
narrative,  only  one  altar  having  been  built.  See  Moore's  "Judges," 
m  loc. 

t  R.  V.  has  rightly  placed  Moses  in  the  text,  with  the  marginal 
note,  "  another  reading  is  Manasseh."  The  printed  Hebrew  Bibles 
still  show  how  this  corruption  came  in.  Moses  and  Manasseh 
differ  in  Hebrew  only  by  the  letter  "n."  This  letter  was  added 
above  the  line,  and  has  remained  there  to  this  day.  The  object 
of  the  change  is  obvious.  For  further  details  see  Moore's 
•'  Judges,"  in  loc. 


THE  MGDER:V  POEVT  OF  V/EIV.  71 

the  enemy  attacked  even  while  the  offering  was  in 
progress,  and  Jehovah  thundered  against  the  Philistines 
and  discomfited  them.  At  his  home  in  Ramah  he  built 
an  altar  to  Jehovah  i^ib  ,17);  when  Saul  came  to  consult 
the  seer  the  latter  was  preparing  for  a  sacrifice  in  the 
high  place  (ix.  12) ;  he  promised  Saul  that  he  would 
join  him  at  Gilgal  to  offer  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices 
(x.  8  ;  cf.  xi.  15) ;  Samuel  went  to  Bethlehem  to  anoint 
David  as  king  under  cover  of  offering  a  sacrifice 
(xvi.  2)  ;  from  which  it  appears  that  Samuel  was  so  in 
the  habit  of  offering  sacrifice  in  various  places,  that  the 
least  suspicious  errand  in  Bethlehem  would  be  the 
offering  of  a  sacrifice. 

A  short  time  after  this  there  was  a  sanctuary  at  Nob 
Avith  a  considerable  company  of  priests  (I.  Sam.  xxi.  f.). 
Saul  was  told,  as  the  most  plausible  reason  for  David's 
absence,  that  his  family  were  to  hold  their  annual  sac- 
rifice at  Bethlehem  (xx.  6,  29).  David  offered  sacrifices 
as  the  ark  was  removed  from  the  house  of  Obed-edom, 
and  again  after  it  had  been  placed  safely  in  the  tent 
which  had  been  prepared  for  it  (II.  Sam.  vi.  13,  17). 
He  granted  permission  to  Absalom  to  go  down  to 
Hebron  to  offer  a  sacrifice  there  {ib.,  xv.  7ff).  The 
erection  of  an  altar  upon  the  spot  which  afterward  be- 
came so  holy  was  due,  speaking  after  the  manner  of 
men,  to  an  accident  {ib.,  xxiv.  i6ff.). 

Solomon's  great  vision  was  in  the  night  after  he  had 
offered  great  sacrifices  at  Gibeon,  which  was  the  chief 


72 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 


high  place  (I.  Kings   iii.  4ff.).     King   Asa   {ih.,  xv.  14) 
tolerated  the  high  places,  though  in  other  things  he 
was  a  reformer.     The  good  king  Jehoshaphat  likewise 
did  not  disturb   the  worship  at   the  local  sanctuaries 
(xxii.  43).     The    like    tolerance   is  seen    in     Jehoash* 
(II.  Kings    xii.  3);    in  Amaziah   (xiv.  4) ;    in    Uzziah 
(xv.  4);   in  Jotham   (xv.   35),  to   mention   only    those 
kings  who  are  said  to  have  done  that  which  was  right  in 
the  eyes  of  Jehovah.     Though  Hezekiah  had  made  an 
effort  to  repress  the  high  places,  it  was  wholly  ineffec- 
tive, and  the  reason  probably  is  that  he  had  no  such  sup- 
port for  his  reform  as  Josiah  had  in  the  book  of  the  Law.f 
The  early  prophets  furnish  further  evidence  that  the 
regulations  of  Deuteronomy  were   either  unknown  to 
them  or  indifferent  to  them.      Hosea  mentions  among 
the  things  Israel  will  be  deprived  of  by  the   captivity, 
king,  prince,  sacrifice,  pillar,  ephod  and  teraphim  (iii  4). 
The    pillar:]:  was    strictly  forbidden    in  Deuteronomy; 
''  neither  shalt  thou  set  thee  up  a  pillar,  which  Jahveh 
*  It  is  more  remarkable  that  Jehoash  tolerated  the   high  places, 
for  he  was  under  the  influence  of  the  high  priest  Jehoiada,  to  whom 
he  owed  the  throne.     The  conclusion  seems  irresistible  that  neither 
king  nor  priest  knew  any  law  condemning  the  high  places.     It  is 
still  more  noteworthy  that  Josiah,  whose  reformatory  measures  had 
begun  before  the   discovery  of  the  book   in  the  temple,  appar- 
ently had  originally  had  no  idea  of  abolishing  the  local  sanctuaries, 
t  See  W.  R.  Smith's  "  Old  Testament   in  the  Jewish  Church," 
2d  ed.,  p.  256f. 

\  Properly  a  consecrated  stone  such  as  Jacob  set  up,  Gen.  xxxi.  45. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OE  VIEW.  73 

thy  God  hateth  "  (xvi.  22).  Isaiah  seems  to  have  had 
no  objection  to  pillars  or  to  a  multiplicity  of  altars, as  he 
said  that  in  converted  Egypt  there  would  be  an  altar 
to  Jehovah,  and  a  pillar  to  Jehovah  (xix.  19).  Even 
Joshua  set  up  such  a  consecrated  stone  under  the 
sacred  tree  by  the  sanctuary  of  Shechem  (Josh.  xxiv. 
26).  The  stone  which  Samuel  set  up  at  Ebenezer  was 
of  the  same  character  (L  Sam.  vii.  13). 

Gathering  up  the  results  of  the  evidence  accumulated, 
it  appears:  (1)  that  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  was  the 
legal  basis  of  Josiah's  reformation;  (2)  that  the  book  con- 
tains many  statements  which  reveal  an  age  later  than 
Moses;  (3)  that  the  book  has  the  form  of  a  compilation 
of  Moses'  last  speeches  with  historical  notes;  (4)  that  a 
number  of  the  laws  belong  to  an  age  long  subsequent 
to  Moses,  in  fact  some  of  them  carry  us  down  to  the 
age  of  Josiah  (638-60S  B.C.).  There  appears  to  be  some 
good  reason  to  believe,  therefore,  that  whatever  may  be 
the  real  origin  of  much  of  the  material  in  Deuteronomy 
— some  of  it  is  undoubtedly  early — the  book  as  a  whole 
was  never  known  to  tlie  public  before  621  B.C. 

It  may  seem  that  this  conclusion  is  more  radical 
than  the  evidence  warrants  ;  for  the  book  may  really 
have  been  lost  during  the  time  between  Moses  and 
Josiah  and  found  again  by  Hilkiah.  But  observe 
that  Josiah  plainly  acknowledges  that  his  fathers  have 
violated  the  fundamental  principles  of  this  code: 
''great  is  the  wrath  of  Jahveh  that  is  kindled  against 


74  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

US,  because  our  fathers  have  not  hearkened  unto  the 
words  of  this  book,  to  do  according  unto  all  that  which 
is  written"  (II.  Kings  xxii.  13).  He  himself  was 
entirely  ignorant  of  this  law.  As  the  Law  itself  pre- 
scribes that  it  shall  be  read  aloud  to  the  people  every 
seven  years  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  and  that  every 
king  shall  possess  a  copy  (Deut.  xxxi.  lof.;  xvii.  i8ff.), 
there  should  by  this  time  have  been  many  copies  in 
existence,  and  a  knowledge  of  the  Law  must  have 
gained  a  currency  which  even  a  half  century  of  sup- 
pression could  not  destroy.  The  object  of  the  inquiry 
of  the  prophetess  Huldah  was  apparently  to  know 
whether  the  Law  should  be  put  into  effect.  As  soon  as 
it  was  confirmed  by  Huldah,  the  king  assembled  the 
people  and  proceeded  at  once  to  make  the  Deutero- 
nomic  code  the  law  of  the  land.  The  impression  is  very 
strong,  from  a  careful  study  of  11.  Kings  xxii.  f,  that  the 
book  was  new  to  king  and  people. 

This  is  the  point  at  which  the  cry  of  '^  pious  fraud  " 
has  so  often  been  raised.  Cheyne,  in  his  excellent  lit- 
tle book  on  Jeremiah,  asks,  "  fraud  or  needful  illu- 
sion ?"  ^  According  to  the  literary  ethics  of  to-day, 
the  insertion  of  a  single  law  which  was  not  Mosaic  in  a 
code  of  actual  Mosaic  laws  would  be  a  fraud,  and  not  a 
very  pious  one,  either.  But  even  if  Hilkiah,  or  a  com- 
pany of  priest-prophets  were  the    author,  is  their  work 

*  "Jeremiah  :  "  His  Life  and  Times,"  p.  69ff.  On  the  question  of 
fraud  see  also  "O.  T.J.  C.-,"  p.  363. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF   VIEW.  75 

to  be  judged  by  the  standard  of  the  dawn  of  the  twen- 
tieth century  ?  The  student  of  the  Old  Testament 
finds  it  necessary  constantly  to  judge  the  ethics  of  the 
Old  Testament  from  the  pre-Christian  rather  than  the 
Christian  standard.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  many  im- 
precatory passages  in  the  Old  Testament  are  at  vari- 
ance with  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  easy  to 
understand  how  such  things  could  be.  We  are  not  so 
much  perplexed  because  Jeremiah,  though  a  prophet  of 
God,  hurled  curses  at  his  persecutors,  as  that  St.  Paul, 
an  Apostle  of  Christ,  should  have  cried  to  the  high 
priest,  *'  God  shalt  smite  thee,  thou  whited  wall " 
(Acts  xxiii.  3).  In  passing  judgment  upon  actions  of 
the  ancient  Hebrews,  it  is  only  fair  that  we  shall  qual- 
ify ourselves  by  historical  study  to  look  at  the  matter 
from  their  point  of  view. 

It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  Hilkiah,  or  his 
contemporaries,  was  guilty  of  a  fraud,  even  according 
to  our  standards.  There  may  have  been  a  genuine 
Mosaic  code  which  had  been  amplified,  in  subsequent 
years,  according  to  the  needs  of  a  more  developed  civ- 
ilization.^ The  one  who  amplified  the  Mosaic  Law 
would  have  seemed  to  take  too  much  upon  himself, 
though  he,  too,  was  a  man  of  God  like  his  great  prede- 
cessor, if  he  had  substituted  his  own  name  for  that  of 

*  The  Deuteronomic  code  certainly  is  an  amplification  of  the 
so-called  Code  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.),  which  was  suited  to 
an  earlier  stage  of  development. 


76  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

Moses.*  The  evidence  is  strong  that  the  book  of  Deut- 
eronomy had  never  been  known  to  the  people  before 
Josiah's  reformation,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the 
material  of  the  book  all  comes  from  that  date.  It  may 
be,  further,  that  this  law  book  was  an  actual  find;  it 
may  be,  as  some  hold,  that  the  book  of  Deuteronomy 
had  been  written  in  the  latter  part  of  Hezekiah's  reign, 
or  in  that  of  Manasseh.  It  would  have  been  impossi- 
ble to  publish  it  while  the  persecutor  Manasseh  sat 
on  the  throne.  Before  the  way  was  open  for  the  book 
to  appear,  its  author  may  have  become  a  victim  of 
Manasseh's  zeal  for  foreign  gods,  and  the  book  may 
have  been  lost  and  forgotten.  This  view,  which, 
though  supported  by  no  sure  evidence,  is  not  inher- 
ently improbable,  removes  all  question  of  fraud. 

Whatever  conclusion  we  may  reach  about  the  origin 
of  the  code,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  timeliness 
of  its  appearance.  The  assassination  of  Amon,  the  son 
of  the  wicked  Manasseh,  when  it  appeared  that  he  would 
walk  in  his  father's  footsteps,  shows  that  the  best  peo- 
ple were  weary  of  religious  persecution.  Josiah  began 
the  purification  of  the  temple,  but  the  people  at  large 
could  be  but  islowly  led  to  a  pure  Jehovah  worship,  as 
long  as  the  local  high  places  were  tolerated.  Those 
shrines  had  doubtless  served  Israel  well  in  the  early 
stages  of  the  national  life;  but  they  had  become  hope- 
lessly corrupt.     They  had  been,  for  the  most  part,  old 

*  See  also  Chap.  v. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  77 

Canaanite  sanctuaries,  and  some  of  the  Canaanite  rites 
had  been  preserved.  The  practice  of  these  foreign 
rites  seems  to  have  increased  as  time  went  on,  and  by 
Josiah's  day  the  high-place  cult  was  in  such  a  state 
that  it  could  be  purified  only  by  fire. 

Hezekiah's  attempt  at  the  centralization  of  worship 
failed  because  the  people  were  not  ready  for  such  rad- 
ical measures,  and  the  king  was  not  strong  enough  to 
enforce  his  will.  The  misgiving  on  the  part  of  the 
people  is  shown  in  the  clever  address  of  Sennacherib's 
ambassadors.  They  tried  to  weaken  the  courage  of 
the  Jewish  people  so  that  they  would  force  a  surrender 
of  the  city.  "  If  ye  say  unto  me,"  they  cried  to  the 
soldiers  on  the  wall  (II.  Kings  xviii  22),  *'  we  trust  in 
Jahveh  our  God,  is  not  that  he,  whose  high  places  and 
whose  altars  Hezekiah  has  taken  away,  and  has  said 
to  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  You  shall  worship  before  this 
altar  in  Jerusalem  ?" 

Josiah  found  the  people  more  receptive  of  reforms, 
and  he  was  wise  enough  to  take  them  fully  into  his 
confidence.  His  first  step  was  to  have  the  Law  read 
to  his  assembled  people,  and  then  he  took  a  solemn 
oath  himself  to  obey  the  Law.  It  was  then  natural  that 
the  people  should  follow  the  example  of  their  king 
(II.  Kings  xxiii.  3).  Jeremiah's  support  had  undoubt- 
edly a  great  influence. 

The  political  situation  showed  the  ripeness  of  the 
times  as  well.     The  nation  had  passed  through  a  long 


78  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

era  of  bloody  persecution  and  political  decay.  The 
past  misfortune  was  explained  as  due  to  the  fact  that 
their  fathers  had  not  kept  the  Law  as  laid  down  in  the 
new  book.  The  hope  of  the  future  was  in  a  thorough- 
going reform.  The  religion  of  Jehovah  advanced 
to  a  higher  plane  by  the  promulgation  of  the  Deute- 
ronomic  code,  and  its  rigid  enforcement.  Except  for 
Josiah's  untimely  death  soon  after  the  completion  of 
his  reforms,  the  whole  course  of  Israel's  later  history 
might  have  been  different. 

The  book  of  Deuteronomy  made  a  large  contribu- 
tion toward  that  unification  of  worship  which,  in  turn, 
aided  in  the  development  of  monotheistic  ideas  among 
the  masses.  It  is  a  priori  improbable  that  such  a  rad- 
ical change  in  religious  practice,  as  that  from  many 
sanctuaries  to  one,  could  be  the  work  of  a  single  gen- 
eration. Deuteronomy  fixes  as  law  a  usage  for  which 
preparation  had  been  going  on  ever  since  the  erection 
of  the  temple  by  Solomon.  That  temple  so  overshad- 
owed the  local  sanctuaries  in  the  splendor  of  its  ap- 
pointments that  they  could  not  hope  indefinitely  to 
maintain  a  rival  position.  The  acute  Jeroboam  .appre- 
ciated the  influence  of  the  great  temple,  and  feared 
that  it  would  wean  away  the  hearts  of  his  subjects; 
therefore  he  built  the  rival  sanctuaries  at  Dan  and  at 
Bethel  (I.  Kings  xii.  26ff.). 


CHAPTER  IV, 


dbe  Ibeyateucbo 

2.    THE    NARRATIVE. 

THE  narrative  of  the  Hexateuch  has  been  di- 
vided by  higher  critics  into  three  main  strata  : 
one  a  product  of  the  southern  kingdom  in 
the  ninth  century  B.  C,  denoted  by  the  symbol  J 
(Jahvist) ;  the  other  a  product  of  the  northern  king- 
dom from  a  somewhat  later  period,  denoted  by  E  (Elo- 
hist);  and  the  third  a  product  of  a  Jewish  priestly  writer 
later  still,  denoted  by  P.  It  is  also  contended  that 
just  as  the  present  Hexateuch  is  made  up  by  compila- 
tion from  pre-existing  sources,  with  a  few  original  ad- 
ditions, so  each  of  these  sources  contains  more  or  less 
material  that  has  been  incorporated  by  the  writer, 
though  those  earlier  sources  show  much  less  compila- 
tion than  the  later.  From  this  conclusion  are  derived 
the  really  innocent  symbols  J,  ]\  ]\  E,  E\  E^  etc., 
which  have  given  occasion  for  so  much  clever  wit  on 
the  part  of  the  assailants  of  the  critical  results.  As 
J  stands  for  the  writing  of  one  particular  Jahvistic 
writer,  who  is  the  author  of  most  of  the  Jahvistic  sec- 


8o  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

tions,  J  i'2.etc..  ^j.g  used  to  denote  parts  of  his  work, 
whether  earlier  or  later,  which  were  not  composed  by 
him,  but  were  either  extracted  from  earlier  writings,  or 
added  by  later  hands. 

On  purely  <^ /r/(?W  grounds,  there  is  nothing  absurd 
in  such  a  supposition.  It  would  not  be  strange  if  there 
had  been  three  histories  of  Israel  written  from  three 
different  points  of  view.  There  are  yet  preserved  two 
such  parallel  histories,  Chronicles  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Genesis  to  11.  Kings  on  the  other.  The  Chronicler  wrote 
a  history  of  his  people  from  Adam  to  the  end  of  Nehe- 
miah's  rule,  and  that  from  his  own  point  of  view.  This 
point  of  view  is  so  peculiar  to  himself  that  his  interpre- 
tations of  the  history  are  not  easily  understood  until 
his  point  of  view  is  clearly  known.  The  point  of  view 
is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  so  prominent  in  Chronicles  that 
the  book — for  originally  both  books  of  Chronicles, 
along  with  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  constituted  but 
one  book — is  about  as  valuable  for  the  light  it  throws 
upon  the  times  of  the  author  as  for  that  it  throws  upon 
the  periods  treated.*  The  Chronicler  does  not  hint 
that  he  is  largely  compiling  extracts  from  earlier  docu- 
ments ;  but  that  is  just  what  he  does,  nevertheless. 
His  style  is  so  peculiar  that  it  is  comparatively  easy  to 
separate  his  own  contributions.  This  is  critical  analysis, 
and  doubtless  the  results  would  be  discredited  by  skep. 
tical  minds,  except  that  we  have  elsewhere  in  the  Old 


See  further  in  Chap.  VII, 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  8 1 

Testament  many  of  the  passages  which  the  Chronicler 
has  incorporated  into  his  book. 

We  have  four  Gospels,  which  are  all  attempts  to  pre- 
serve an  account  of  the  life  and  teaching"  of  our  blessed 
Lord.  Each  is  written,  however,  from  its  own  peculiar 
point  of  view,  and  that  point  of  view  is  easily  discerned 
in  the  Gospel.  Now,  if  some  one  had  conceived  the 
idea  that  it  was  better  to  have  one  Gospel  than  four, 
it  would  have  been  easy  to  compile  one  by  simply 
choosing  extracts  from  these  four  sources  ;  and,  in 
fact,  just  that  thing  was  done,  and  has  come  down  to 
us  in  Tatian's  Diatesseron.  Fortunately,  however,  we 
have  preserved  to  us  the  original  documents.  In  this 
case,  in  fact,  it  was  the  single  compilation  which  was 
long  lost,  not  the  original  sources,  as  is  the  case  in 
the  Hexateuch.  Moreover,  as  Sayce  has  pointed  out 
(H.  C.  M.,  c.  ii.),  compilation  was  the  rule  rather  than 
the  exception  among  Semitic  writers. 

But  even  if  our  present  Hexateuch  is  conceded  to  be 
the  result  of  a  process  of  compilation  from  primary 
sources  which  have  been  lost,  many  are  very  skeptical 
as  to  the  ability  of  any  one  to  separate  the  completed 
thread  into  its  original  strands.  Literary  analysis  is, 
of  course,  work  for  experts.  We  may  not  know  that 
this  verse  is  due  to  J  and  the  next  one  to  P,  because  we 
have  not  acquired  the  necessary  knowledge  and  experi- 
ence, though  we  may  often  perceive  the  justification  of 
the   result  when  it   is    explained  to    us.     People  who 


82  THE   OLD   TESTAMEI^T  FROM 

drink  the  polluted  water  of  many  rivers  and  wells  ex- 
pose themselves  to  the  danger  of  typhoid  fever.  Most 
of  us  have  never  seen  the  germ  of  typhoid  fever,  and 
should  not  know  one  if  we  did  see  it.  But  we  know 
the  danger,  because  those  who  have  the  requisite 
knowledge  and  experience  tell  us  of  it;  and  we  have 
this  confirmation  of  their  statement,  that  hundreds 
who  drink  such  water  actually  contract  the  disease. 
Our  knowledge  is  based  upon  the  testimony  of  ex- 
perts. 

The  writer  by  no  means  poses  as  a  literary  expert  ; 
but  there  is  much  in  the  results  of  those  who  are  liter- 
ary experts  to  convince  him  that  their  conclusions  may 
not  be  too  lightly  brushed  aside,  even  if  he  is  persuaded 
that  analysis  is  often  carried  beyond  the  possibilities  of 
satisfactory  demonstration.  It  is  quite  possible,  more- 
over, for  the  most  modest  student  to  test  the  accuracy 
of  the  critical  judgment. 

Another  consideration  must  be  given  full  weight. 
The  more  the  original  narratives  which  have  been 
combined  are  alike  in  general  conception  and  spirit, 
the  more  difificult  the  separation  of  the  compilation, 
and  conversely.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
for  example,  is  a  composite  document,  but  it  is  very 
difficult  to  distinguish  between  its  original  contributors, 
because  they  all  belonged  to  the  same  age,  had  pre- 
cisely the  same  object,  and  were  imbued  with  the  same 
spirit.    But  if  a  history  of  the  Rebellion  were  compiled 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  83 

from  two  ex  parte  sources,  the  task  of  analysis  would 
be  comparatively  simple. 

Of  the  three  main  sources  in  the  Hexateuch,  P  is  very 
different  in  style  and  conception,  if  not  in  age,  from  J 
and  E,  But  J  and  E  belong  to  the  same  general 
period  ;  they  each  deal  with  history  in  the  prophetic 
spirit  ;  and  therefore  the  cautious  analyst  confesses 
frankly  that  he  is  sometimes  unable  to  separate  between 
these  two,  even  when  he  is  sure  that  the  passage  in 
question  contains  material  from  both.  Consequently, 
in,  ^.  ^.,  Driver's  analysis,  we  find  often  JE  simply, 
to  indicate  the  combined  product  of  these  sources, 
though  many  scholars  are  bold  enough  to  carry  the 
analysis  to  completion.  In  Genesis  the  task  is  easier, 
because  in  that  book  E  uses  the  name  'Elohim  for 
God,  and  J  Jahveh. 

A  few  of  the  more  apparent  cases  in  which  the  an- 
alysis rests  upon  the  surest  foundation  will  now  be  ex- 
amined, and  the  result  indicated.  Comparatively  few 
examples  can  be  exhibited  ;  but  they  are  enough  for 
our  purpose,  which  is  not  critical  analysis,  but  the  test 
of  the  general  division  of  the  Hexateuch  into  its  pri- 
mary sources.  The  reader  may  be  referred  to  Dr. 
Gibson's  admirable  little  book"^  for  further  evidence  of 

*"  Reasons  for  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch."  Phila- 
delphia, 1897.  For  a  fuller  treatment,  books  such  as  Addis'  "  Doc- 
uments of  the  Hexateuch  "  and  Bacon's  "  Genesis  in  Genesis"  may 
profitably  be  consulted. 


84  THE  OLD    TESTA M EXT  EROM 

the  comp>osite  character  of  the  Hexateuch.  It  \\\\\ 
be  found  that  I  have  rarely  used  the  cases  cited  by 
him. 


I.  One  of  the  most  striking  instances  of  the  com. 
posite  character  of  the  Hexateuch  occurs  at  the  very 
beginning  of  the  Bible,  in  the  story  of  creation.  The 
two  versions  are  here  placed  side  by  side,  that  they 
may  be  studied  comparatively  : 


J 
In  the  day  when  Jahveh 
God  made  earth  and  heav- 
en, then  there  was  no 
shrub  of  the  field  on  the 
earth,  and  no  herb  of  the 
field  had  sprouted.  Yox 
Jahveh  God  had  not  yet 
caused  rain  upon  the  earth, 
and  there  was  no  man  to 
till  the  ground.  And  a 
mist  went  up  from  the 
earth,  and  watered  all  the 
surface  of  the  ground. 
And  Jahveh  God  formed 
the  man  of  dust  from  the 
ground,  and  he  breathed 
into  his  nostrils  the  breath 
cf  life ;  so  the  man  beca.iie 
a  living  soul.  And  Jah- 
veh God  planted  a  garden 


These  are  the  generations  of  the 
heavens  and  the  earth,  when  they 
were  created  (ii.  4), 

1.  In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth.  Now  the 
earth  was  a  chaos  and  a  waste,  and 
darkness  was  upon  the  surface  of  the 
abyss ;  and  the  Spirit  of  God  was 
hovering  over  the  surface  of  the 
waters.  And  God  said,  Let  there  *be 
light ;  and  there  was  light :  and  God 
saw  the  light  that  it  was  good.  And 
God  made  a  division  between  the  light 
and  the  darkness  ;  and  God  called  the 
light  day,  and  the  darkness  he  called 
night. 

2.  And  God  said.  Let  there  be  an  ex- 
panse in  the  midst  of  the  waters,  and 
let  there  be  a  dividing  between  waters 
and  waters.     And  God  made  the  ex- 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W, 


in  Eden  on  the  east,  and 
h'i  placed  there  the  man 
whom  he  had  formed. 

And  Jahveh  Gnd  caused 
to  sprout  from  the  ground 
every  tree  agreeable  in  ap- 
pearance and  good  for 
food  ;  and  the  tree  of  life 
in  the  midst  of  the  garden, 
and  the  tree  of  knowing 
good  and  evil.  And  Jah- 
veh God  took  the  man 
and  placed  him  in  the  gar- 
den of  Eden  to  till  it  and 
to  guard  it.  And  Jahveh 
God  commanded  the  man, 
saying.  Of  every  tree  of 
the  garden  thou  mayst 
freely  eat ;  but  of  the  tree 
of  knowing  good  and  evil 
thou  mayst  not  eat.  For 
in  the  day  of  thy  eating  of 
it  thou  shalt  surely  die. 

And  Jahveh  God  said, 
It  is  not  good  for  the  man 
to  be  alone ;  I  will  make 
for  him  a  helpmeet.  And 
Jahveh  God  formed  from 
the  ground  every  beast  of 
the  field  and  every  fowl  of 
the  heavens,  and  brought 
them  unto  the  man  to  see 


panse,  and  made  a  division  between 
the  waters  which  were  under  the  ex- 
panse and  the  waters  which  were 
above  the  expanse  :  and  it  became  so. 
And  God  called  the  expanse  heavens. 

3.  And  Gcd  said,  Let  the  waters 
under  the  heavens  be  gathered  onto 
one  place,  and  let  the  dryland  appear; 
and  it  became  so.  And  God  called 
the  dry  land  earth,  and  the  gathering 
of  the  waters  he  called  seas.  And 
God  saw  that  it  was  good.  And  God 
said,  Let  the  earth  sprout  forth  grass, 
herb  producing  seed,  fruit  trees  bear- 
ing fruit  after  its  kind,  whose  seed  is 
in  itself,  upon  the  earth ;  and  it  be- 
came so.  And  the  earth  brought 
forth  grass,  herb  producing  seed  after 
its  kind,  and  trees  bearing  fruit  whose 
seed  is  in  itself  after  its  kind.  And 
God  saw  that  it  was  good. 

4.  And  God  said,  Let  there  be  lumi- 
naries in  the  expanse  of  the  heavens  to 
divide  between  the  day  and  the  night, 
and  they  shall  be  for  signs  and  for 
sea'ons  and  for  days  and  years;  and 
they  shall  be  for  luminaries  in  the  ex- 
panse of  the  heavens  to  give  light  upon 
the  earth;  and  it  became  so.  And 
God  made  the  two  great  luminaries — 
the  greater  luminary  for  the  ruling  of 
the  day,  and  the  lesser  luminary-  for 


86 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 


what  he  would  call  them  ; 
and  whatever  the  man 
called  them,  that  was 
their  name.  And  the  man 
called  names  for  all  the 
cattle,  and  for  the  fowl  of 
the  heavens,  and  for  all 
the  beasts  of  the  field. 
But  for  man  he  did  not 
find  a  helpmeet. 

And  Jahveh  God  caused 
a  heavy  slumber  to  fall 
upon  the  man,  and  he 
slept.  And  he  took  one 
of  his  ribs,  and  closed  the 
flesh  in  its  place.  And 
Jahveh  God  built  the  rib 
which  he  had  taken  from 
the  man  into  a  woman, 
and  brought  her  unto  the 
man  ;  and  the  man  said. 
This  now  is  bone  of  my 
bone,  and  flesh  of  my 
flesh.  To  this  shall  be 
called  woman,  for  it  was 
taken  from  man.  There- 
fore a  man  leaves  his  father 
and  mother  and  joins  to 
his  wife,  and  they  be- 
come one  flesh.  And 
they  too  were  naked,  the 
man    and    his    wife,    and 


the  ruling  of  the  night ;  also  (he  made) 
the  stars.  And  God  placed  them  in 
the  expanse  of  the  heavens,  to  give 
light  upon  the  earth,  and  to  rule  over 
the  day  and  over  the  night,  and  to  di- 
vide between  the  light  and  the  dark- 
ness :  and  Gcd  saw  that  it  was  good. 

5.  And  God  said.  Let  the  waters 
swarm  with  swarms  of  living  things, 
and  let  fowl  fly  over  the  earth,  upon 
the  surface  of  the  expanse  of  the 
heavens.  And  God  created  the  great 
sea  monsters,  and  every  living  thing, 
the  creeping  thing  with  which  the 
waters  swarmed  after  their  kind,  and 
every  winged  fowl  after  its  kind  :  and 
God  saw  that  it  was  good.  And  God 
blessed  them,  saying.  Be  fruitful  and 
multiply,  and  fill  the  waters  in  the 
seas  ;  and  let  the  fowl  multiply  on  the 
earth. 

6.  And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring 
forth  living  things  after  their  kind,  cat- 
tle and  creeper  and  beast  of  the  earth 
after  their  kind  :  and  it  became  so. 
And  God  made  the  beast  of  the  earth 
after  its  kind,  and  the  cattle  after  its 
kind,  and  every  creeper  of  the  ground 
after  its  kind  :  and  God  saw  that  it 
was  good.  And  God  said,  Let  us  make 
man  in  our  image,  according  to  our 
likeness,  and  let  them  have  dominion 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  87 

were  not  ashamed  (Gen.  ii.     over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the 
4^-9,  15-25).  fowl  of  the  heavens,  and  over  the  cat- 

tle, and  over  all  (the  beasts  of)  the 
earth,  and  over  every  creeper  which 
creeps  upon  the  earth.  And  God 
created  man  in  his  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him, 
male  and  female  he  created  them.  And  God  blessed  them,  and  God 
said  to  them,  Be  fruitful  and  multiply,  and  fill  the  earth  and  subdue 
it ;  and  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of 
the  heavens,  and  over  every  living  thing  which  creeps  upon  the 
earth.  And  God  said,  Behold,  I  have  given  to  you  every  herb 
yielding  seed  which  is  upon  the  surface  of  the  whole  earth,  and 
every  tree  in  which  there  is  fruit  of  a  tree  yielding  seed,  it  is  yours 
for  food ;  and  to  every  beast  of  the  earth,  and  to  all  the  fowl  of  the 
heavens,  and  to  every  creeping  thing  upon  the  earth  in  which  is 
soul  of  life,  every  green  herb  is  for  food  :  and  it  became  so.  And 
God  saw  all  that  he  had  made,  and  behold,  it  was  very  good. 

7.  And  the  heavens  and  the  earth  and  all  their  host  were  com- 
pleted. And  God  completed  the  work  which  he  had  done  in  the 
seventh  day ;  and  he  rested  in  the  seventh  day  from  all  his  work 
which  he  had  done.  And  God  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  hal- 
lowed it,  because  in  it  he  rested  from  all  his  work  which  he  had 
done  in  creation  (Gen.  i.  i-ii.  4^). 

In  J's  story  I  have  omitted  a  short  passage  unneces- 
sary for  my  purpose  ;  in  P's  I  have  placed  ii.  4  where  it 
belongs  as  the  heading,  and  have  omitted  the  refrain, 
"  and  it  was  evening,  and  it  was  morning,  day  first,  sec- 
ond," etc.  I  have  divided  P's  account  according  to 
the  scheme  of  the  seven  days. 

An  examination  of  the  narratives  shows  that  each  is 


88  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

a  complete  account  of  the  creation.  The  heavens,  the 
earth,  vegetable  and  animal  life,  including-  man.  were 
the  result  of  God's  creative  work.  The  agreement  in 
the  fundamental  fact  that  God  was  the  creator  of  the 
world  is  complete.  But  the  differences  of  detail  are  so 
numerous  as  to  preclude  either  unity  of  authorship,  or 
attempts  at  harmony.  It  is  worth  while  to  examine 
these  differences  with  some  degree  of  fulness.  This  is 
the  easier  to  do  as,  fortunately,  each  story  has  been 
preserved  in  its  integrity.  The  compiler,  instead  of  at- 
tempting to  make  an  account  of  the  creation  by  weav- 
ing together  the  two  versions  before  him,  simply  placed 
one  after  the  other,  each  in  its  complete  form. 

J  uses  the  divine  name,  Jahveh 'Elohim  *;  P  uses 
only  'Elohim  (God).  J  starts  with  an  implication  of  the 
creation  of  the  earth  and  heavens,  and  proceeds  at  once 
to  the  creation  of  life  upon  the  earth  ;  V  describes  the 
creation  of  the  heavens  and  earth  (P's  order  as  against 
J's,  *'  earth  and  heavens  ")  as  fully  as  anything  else.  J's 
principal  interest  is  in  the  creation  of  man  ;  P's,  in  each 
part  of  the  whole.     J  describes  the  earth  as  barren  at 

*  The  original  author  wrote  only  Jahveh.  The  "  'Elohim  "  was 
added  by  the  compiler,  perhaps  to  identify  the  Jahveh  of  J  with  the 
'Elohim  of  P,  whose  story  had  been  placed  just  before.  It  is  very 
probable  that  the  compiler's  purpose  was  to  add  'Elohim  as  an 
explanatory  note;  but  as  he  had  no  diacritical  devices,  he  had  to 
write  his  note  in  the  text.  In  many  similar  cases,  notes  may  have 
been  placed  originally  on  the  margin,  and  then  copied  into  the  text 
by  subsequent  scribes. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW  89 

the  beginning,  because  there  was  no  rain  ;  P  describes 
it  as  covered  with  water.  In  J,  man  was  the  first 
object  created  as  necessary  to  the  production  of  vege- 
table life;  in  P,  man  was  created  last.  In  J,  an  individ- 
ual man  was  first  created,  and  then,  as  the  last  creative 
act,  a  woman  from  his  own  body  as  a  helpmeet ;  in  P, 
the  genus  man  (including  both  sexes)  was  created  to- 
gether. In  J,  the  animals  were  created  for  man's 
especial  benefit ;  in  P,  though  man  has  dominion  over 
them,  he  is  restricted  to  vegetable  food.  P's  culminat- 
ing interest  is  in  the  divine  institution  of  the  Sabbath 
day,  of  which  there  is  no  mention  in  J. 

J's  conception  of  God  is  far  inferior  to  P's.  J  repre- 
sents Jahveh  making  man  as  an  artificer;  P  repre- 
sents Him  as  accomplishing  His  will  by  a  fiat.  P's 
story  is  orderly,  precise  and  repetitious ;  it  moves 
along  with  a  consistent  plan:  first  a  fiat  that  a  certain 
thing  should  be  done,  then  the  statement  that  it  was 
done.  In  each  case  also  there  are  the  assertions,  *'  and  it 
became  so,"  "and  God  saw  that  it  was  good." 

It  is  difiicult  to  understand  how  a  single  writer  could 
be  responsible  for  such  diversity  of  detail. 

II.  Let  us  examine  next  these  two  passages  placed 
likewise,  side  by  side  : 

J  P 
Now    Esau    persecuted  And  Rebecca  said  to  Isaac,    I  am 
Jacob  because  of  the  bless-  mortally  troubled  because  of  the  Kit- 
ing with  which  his  father  tite  women.     If  Jacob  take  a  wife  of 


go 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 


had    blessed    him.      And  such   women   as   these    Hittites,   the 

Esau  said  to  himself,  The  women  of  the  country,  what  have  I  to 

days  of  the  mourning  for  live  for  ?     And  Isaac  called  Jacob  and 

my    father    are    drawing  blessed  him,  and  commanded  him  and 

near:  then  I  will  kill  my  said   to   him,    Thou  shalt  not  take  a 

brother  Jacob.      But  Re-  wife  of  the  women  of  Canaan.     Arise, 

becca  heard  of  the  words  goto  Padan-aram,  to  the  house  of  Be- 

of    her   elder   son   Esau ;  thuel,  thy  mother's  father,  and  thence 

and     she     sent     for     her  take  a  wife,  from  the  women  of  Laban, 

younger    son    Jacob,  and  thy  mother's  brother.      And  may  God 

said  to   him,  Behold,   thy  Almighty     bless    thee,    and   increase 

brother     Esau    will    have  thee,   and   make   thee   many,  so  that 

revenge     upon     thee,    by  thou  shalt  be  an  assembly  of  nations, 

killing    thee.      Now,    my  And  may  he  give  thee  the  blessing  of 

son,  listen   to    my   voice :  Abraham,  to  thee  and  thy  seed  with 

Arise,  flee  thee  to  Haran,  thee,  that  thou  mayst  possess  the  land 

to  my  brother  Laban,  and  of  thy   sojourning    which  God    gave 

live  with  him  a  few  days,  to  Abraham.      And  Isaac  sent  Jacob 

until  thy  brother's    wrath  away ;    and  he  went  to   Padan-aram 

passes    away  —  until    thy  unto    Laban  the  son  of  Bethuel,  the 

brother's     anger     passes  Aramean,  the  brother  of  Rebecca,  the 

away   from   thee,   and   he  mother  of  Jacob  and  Esau  (Gen.  xxvii. 

forgets    what     thou    hast  46-xxviii.  5.) 
done  to  him.     Then  I  will 

send  and  bring  thee  from  there.     Why  should  I  be  bereaved  of 
you  both  at  one  time  ?     And  Jacob  departed  from  Beersheba,  and 

went  to  Haran  (Gen.  xxvii.  41-45,  xxviii.  10). 

Are  these  two  independent  stories  ?  or  are  they 
rather,  as  modern  critics  assert,  two  varying  forms  of 
the  same  original }  These  are  certain  facts  which 
should  be  carefully  noted. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  qi 

Tlie  same  place  is  called  Haran  in  one  version  and 
Padan-aram  in  the  other.  Each  narrative  distinctly 
states  that  Jacob  was  sent  away;  but  there  arc  two  dis- 
tinct reasons  given  for  his  departure  :  (i)  to  escape 
the  wrath  of  his  enraged  brother;  (2)  to  procure  a  wife 
of  his  own  kindred.  It  might  be  said  that  the  shrewd 
Rebecca  could  not  send  Jacob  off  without  Isaac's  per- 
mission, and  that  she  conceals  from  Isaac  her  real 
reason  for  desiring  to  get  Jacob  away,  merely  inventing 
the  getting  of  a  suitable  wife  as  a  pretext.  Esau  sup- 
poses that  Jacob  had  gone  away  in  order  to  get  a  wife 
from  his  kindred  ;  for  he  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
Isaac  did  not  like  theCanaanite  women,  and  so  adds  to 
his  harem  a  wife  of  Abrahamic  descent  (Gen.  xxviii.  8f., 
also  P).  But  when  we  follow  Jacob  to  Syria  in  J's 
story,  his  marriage  is  only  an  incident  ;  it  does  not  ap- 
pear to  be  the  real  object  of  his  mission.  The  two 
motives  are  therefore  consistently  preserved  through 
the  narrative. 

According  to  P  again,  Isaac  blesses  Jacob  before  his 
departure  in  a  way  that  is  truly  strange,  in  view  of  the 
trick  Jacob  had  played  upon  him.  The  source  from 
which  this  is  taken  evidently  knows  nothing  about 
Jacob's  fraud  in  getting  the  blessing.  Esau,  too,  is  im- 
pressed with  the  blessing  of  Jacob,  as  he  would  not 
have  been  if  this  writer  had  known  of  the  trick.  A 
bare  reading  of  the  narrative  reveals  unmistakable  signs 
of  duplication.     The  natural  conclusion  is,  therefore, 


92 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 


that  these  two  sources  each  contained  an  account  cf 
Jacob's  departure  for  Syria  ;  but  each  gives  a  different 
cause  for  that  journey. 


III.  We  will  next  separate  a  passage  in  which  there 
seem  to  be  three  parallel  stories  : 

E  J  P 

And  he  lighted  up-  And  behold  Jahveh  And  God  appeared 

on    the     place,    and  stood     by   him  and  unto    Jacob    again 

spent  the  night  there  ;  said,    lam  Jahveh,  when  he  came  from 

for  the  sun  had  set.  the   God    of    Abra-  Padan-aram.      And 

And  he  took  one  of  ham  thy  father,  and  God    blessed    him, 

the    stones    of    the  the   God   of    Isaac,  and  said  to  him,  Thy 

place,  and   placed   it  The    ground     upon  name  is  Jacob.    Thy 

by  his  head.    And  he  which    thou    liest  name  shall  no  longer 

lay  down  to  sleep  in  will  I   give  to   thee  be  called  Jacob,  but 

that  place.     And  he  and    to    thy   seed.  Israel    shall  be   thy 

dreamed,  and  he  saw  And  thy  seed  shall  name.  And  he  called 

a  ladder  set  upon  the  be  like  the  dust  of  his  name  Israel.  And 

ground,    whose    top  the  earth;  and  thou  God  said  unto   him, 

reached  the  heavens,  shalt   spread    west-  I    am    'El    Shaddai. 

And  he  saw  the  an-  ward   and  eastward  Be    fruitful   and    in- 

gels  of  God  going  up  and  northward  and  crease.     A   nation 

and  down    upon    it.  southward.    And  all  and  an  assembly  of 

And    he  was   afraid,  the   families   of  the  nations    shall    come 

and  said,  How  terrible  land  shall  be  blessed  from  thee,  and  kings 

is  this  place  !  this  is  in   thee  and  in  thy  shall  come  from  thy 

no    other   than    the  seed.      And  behold  loins.      The    land 

house    of    God,   and  I  am  with  thee,  and  which  I  gave  to  Abra- 

this   is  the    gate    of  will    guard  thee   in  ham  and  to  Isaac,  I 

heaven.     And  Jacob  every  place  thou  go-  give  to  thee ;   and  to 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  93 

rose     early    in    the  est,  and  will   bring     thy  seed    after    thee 

morning,  and  took  the  thee  back  unto  this     do    I  give  the   land. 

stone  which   he  had  land.    For  I  will  not     And   God   went    up 

placed   by   his   head  forsake  thee  until  I     from  him  in  the  place 

and  set   it  up   for  a  have    done    what  I     where  he  had  spoken 

sacred    pillar.      And  have  promised  thee,     with  him.  And  Jacob 

he  poured   oil   upon         And  Jacob  awoke     called   the  name    of 

its  top   (Gen.   xxviii.  from  his  sleep,  and     the  place  where  God 

II,  12,  17,18).  said,  Surely  Jahveh     had  spoken  with  him 

And   Jacob  went  is  in  this  place,  and     Bethel     (Gen.    xxxv. 

to   Luz,   which  is  in  I  did   not   know  it.     9-13,  15). 

the  land   of   Canaan  And    he   called  the 

(that   is    Bethel),   he  name  of   that  place 

and    all   the    people  Bethel ;  but  formerly 

who  were  with  him.  Luz  was  the  name 

And   he   built   there  of     the    city    (Gen. 

an   altar,  and   called  xxviii.  13-16,  19). 

the  place  El-Bethel ;        And  Jacob  set  up 

for  there  God  was  re-  a    sacred    pillar    in 

vealed    unto    him,  the   place  where  he 

when  he  fled  from  his  spoke  unto    him,  a 

brother   (Gen.    xxxv.  stone  pillar.  And  he 

6,  7).  poured  a  drink-of- 
fering upon  it,  and 
poured  oil  upon  it 
(Gen.  xxxv.  14). 

Here  are  surely  three  accounts  of  the  theophany 
which  gave  rise  to  the  name  Bethel,  whether  indepen- 
dent or  not.  There  were  two  theophanies  at  Bethel, 
according  to  E  and  J,  one  before  and  the  other  after 
Jacob's  long  sojourn  with  Laban.     P  knows  only  one, 


94 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 


and  that  occurred  at  the  later  time.  According  to  J, 
the  name  Bethel  was  given  at  the  first  visit,  but  the 
consecrated  stone  was  set  up  at  the  second.  In  E, 
precisely  the  opposite  order  of  events  is  given  :  the 
consecrated  stone  was  set  up  at  the  first  visit,  but  the 
name  Bethel  was  given  at  the  second.  P  agrees  with  E 
in  this  last  matter,  but  of  course  has  nothing  to  say 
about  the  sacred  stone,  for  all  such  things  were  an 
abomination  to  him. 

That  the  narratives  are  parallel  seems  manifest.  The 
blessing  in  P  has  almost  identical  phraseology  with 
the  blessing  of  Isaac  in  xxviii.  3f.  J  uses  the  name  Jah- 
veh,  E  'Elohim,  and  P  *E1  Shaddai  in  the  blessing  (as  in 
xxviii.  3),  otherwise 'Elohim.  We  find  here  P's  account 
of  the  origin  of  the  name  Israel ;  but  this  name  has 
already  been  accounted  for  in  another  source  (J).  On 
the  night  before  Jacob  met  Esau  he  was  left  alone 
by  the  river  Jabbok.  There  the  wrestling  angel  said 
to  him,  in  answer  to  Jacob's  demand  for  a  blessing, 
"  Thy  name  shall  not  again  be  called"^  Jacob,  but  Israel, 
for  thou  hast  striven  with  God  and  with  men,  and  hast 
conquered  "  (xxxii.  28).  The  giving  of  this  name  inter- 
rupts the  narrative  in  P's  blessing,  and  is  regarded  by 
Dillmann  as  an  insertion  by  an  editor.  P  always  calls 
the  patriarch  Jacob,  never  Israel.  At  all  events,  it 
must  be  apparent  that  God  did  not  change  Jacob's 
name  twice  and  at  practically  the  same  time. 

*  A  different  word  is  used  lor  "called"  in  P  (Gen.  xxxv.  10). 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  95  ' 

It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  the  stories  agree  in         | 
essential  matters  :  the  name  Bethel  was  given   to  the         I 
ancient  Luz  by  Jacob  ;    he  so  named  it  after  a  the- 
ophany,  and  because  it  appeared  to  him  a  place  of  pe-        ; 
culiar  sanctity.     It  should  be  noticed  that  J  anachron-        < 
ously  uses  the  name  Bethel  in  the  history  of  Abraham 
(Gen.  xii.  8  ;   xiii.  3).      The    name  Luz    does   not   ap- 
pear before  this.     Luz  is  a  different  city  in  Judges  i.  26, 
and  perhaps  in  Josh.  xvi.  2   (JE);    but   P  repeats  the 
identification,  though  he  retains  the  older  name  (Josh, 
xviii.  13;  cf.  Qi^w.  xlviii.  3). 

IV.  As  a  minor  matter,  it  may  be  noted  that  we  have 
two  explanations  of  Joseph's  name  which  are  placed 
directly  after  each  other  in  our  present  text,  with  omis- 
sions which  are  obvious  and  readily  supplied.  The 
sentence  in  brackets  was  omitted  by  the  compiler.  i 

E  J                                 j 

And  she   conceived  and  bore  And    she    called     his     name 

a  son,  and  said,  God  has  taken  Joseph  ("  may  he  add"),  saying, 

away    (Heb.,  'a^^//^)    my    re-  May  Jahveh  add  (Heb.,  j^j^/y^) 

preach  [and  she  called  his  name  another     son  to  me  (Gen.  xxx. 

Joseph("hetakesaway '')]  (Gen.  24).                                                         ; 

xxx.  23).  I 

These  two  passages  are  distinguishable  by  the  differ- 
ent name   for  God,  as  well  as  by  the  different  etymol-        j 
ogy  of  Joseph's  name.     The  name  Joseph  in   Hebrew         \ 
could  come  from  either  of  these  two  roots.    One  derives         ; 
it  from  'asapJi,  to  take  away,  the  other  from  yasapJi,  to         ; 

1 


96 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 


add.  The  account  of  the  birth  of  Jacob  is  omitted 
^rom  J,  and  tlie  naming  from  E;  but  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  compiler  has  preserved  a  duplicate  deri- 
vation. 

V.  If  one  reads  the  story  of  Joseph's  sale  to  the  cara- 
van which  took  him  to  Egypt,  he  is  struck  with  the 
number  of  duplicate  statements.  The  matter  is  cleared 
up  by  separating  the  double  narrative. 

E  J 
And  they  said  to  each  other,  And  Joseph  went  after  his 
Lo,  yonder  master  of  dreams  is  brothers,  and  found  them  in  Do- 
coming.  Now,  come,  let  us  kill  than.  And  they  saw  him  afar 
him,  and  cast  him  into  one  of  the  off,  before  he  was  near  them, 
pits,  and,  we  will  say,  A  wild  and  they  formed  a  plot  to  kill 
beast  has  devoured  him.  Then  him.  And  Reuben  heard  it, 
we  will  see  what  will  become  of  and  delivered  him  from  their 
his  dreams.  And  Reuben  said  hand,  and  said.  Let  us  not  take 
to    them.  Do  not  shed    blood  :  his  life. 

cast   him  into  this  pit  which  is  And    they  sat    down    to    eat 

in  the  wilderness  ;  but  do  not  lay  food.     And  they  looked  up  and 

a  hand  upon  him — that  he  might  lo,  they  saw  a  caravan  of  Ishma- 

deliver  him  from  their  hand  to  elites  coming  from  Gilead  ;  and 

return  him  to  his  father.     And  their  camels  were  carrying  spi- 

when  Joseph  came  to  his  broth-  eery  and  balm  and  myrrh,  taking 

ers,  they  stripped  Joseph  of  his  it  down  to  Egypt.     And  Judah 

tunic,    the    long- sleeved    tunic,  said  to  his  brothers,  What  is  the 

which  was  on   him ;   and   they  gain  if  we  kill  our  brother  and 

took     him   and    cast   him   into  cover  up  his  blood  ?     Come,  let 

the  pit.    Now  the  pit  was  empty,  us  sell  him  to  the  Ishmaelites, 

there  was  no  water  in  it.  and   let  not  our  hand  be  upon 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  97 

And  there  passed  by  Midian-  him— our  brother   is  our   ilesh. 

ites,  traders,  and  they  (/.  <?.,  the  And   his   brothers   agreed,  and 

Midianites)  drew  Joseph  up  out  they  sold  Joseph  to  the  Ishmael- 

of    the    pit,  and   they    brought  ites  for  twenty  pieces  of  silver. 

Joseph  to  Egypt.    And  Reuben  And  Joseph  was  brought  down 

returned  to  the  pit,  and  behold  to  Egypt,  and  Potiphar,  an  ofifi- 

Joseph  was  not  in  the  pit.    And  cer  of  Pharaoh,  the  chief  of  the 

he    rent   his  clothes,  and    went  body  guard,  an  Egyptian,  bought 

back  to   his  brothers  and   said,  him  of  the  Ishmaelites  who  had 

The  lad  is  gone,  and   whither  brought  him   down  there  (Gen. 

shall   I  go?     And  the  Midian-  xxxvii.    17^,  18,  21,  25-27,  28^- 

ites  sold  him  in  Egypt  to  Poti-  xxxix.  i). 
phar,  an  officer  of  Pharaoh,  the 
chief  of  the  body  guard   (Gen. 
xxxvii.  19,  20,  22-24,  28-30,  36). 

Each  of  the  above  narratives  is  complete,  as  will 
easily  be  seen  if  each  one  is  read  through.  They  are 
in  perfect  harmony  as  to  the  main  facts.  Joseph's 
brothers  hated  him  and  purposed  to  kill  him,  but  they 
were  dissuaded  from  doing  this  by  Reuben.  A  cara- 
van chanced  to  be  passing,  which  took  Joseph  and  car- 
ried him  to  Egypt  and  sold  him  to  Potiphar. 

But  there  are  some  striking  differences  in  detail.  In 
E,  the  caravan  was  composed  of  Midianites,  in  J,  of  Ish- 
maelites ;  in  J,  Reuben  seems  to  have  been  a  party  to 
the  sale  of  his  brother,  contenting  himself  with  saving 
his  life.  From  E  it  would  appear  that  the  Midianites 
took  Joseph  out  of  the  pit  where  his  brothers  had  aban- 
doned him;  that  is,  the  traders  did  not  buy  Joseph,  but 


gS  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

discovered  him  themselves,  and  took  him  as  a  captive. 
Hence  Reuben  came  back  to  the  pit  secretly  to  rescue 
Joseph,  not  knowing  that  he  had  been  stolen  while  he 
and  his  brothers  were  away.  In  the  same  source  (E), 
consistently  with  this,  Joseph  told  Pharaoh's  butler 
that  he  had  been  ''  stolen  away  out  of  the  land  of  the 
Hebrews"  (Gen.  xl.15).  In  J,  he  was  not  put  into  a  pit, 
but  sold  directly  to  the  Ishmaelites.  There  is,  perhaps, 
as  much  harmony  as  one  should  expect  in  ancient  nar- 
ratives like  these.  At  all  events,  each  one  by  itself  is 
intelligible. 

But  the  composite  story  as  it  now  stands  is  not  very 
clear.  If  we  read  the  passage  continuously  as  we  find  it, 
we  are  struck  with  the  confusion  of  statements.  Joseph's 
brothers  resolved  to  kill  him  (v.  18);  they  proposed  to 
kill  him  and  throw  his  body  into  a  pit  (19);  Reuben 
rescues  Joseph  from  his  brothers  (21);  after  which  we 
read  that  Joseph  arrived,  and  was  placed  alive  in  an 
empty  pit  (23).  The  caravan  comes  along,  and  Judah 
proposes  to  sell  Joseph  instead  of  killing  him  ;  the  Mid- 
ianites  take  Joseph  from  the  p't  and  carry  him  away; 
then  his  brothers  sell  him  to  the  Ishmaelites.  Finally, 
Reuben,  who  had  previously  had  Joseph  safely  in  his 
hands,  returns  to  the  pit,  and  is  surprised  to  find  that 
Joseph  has  disappeared.  It  is  highly  probable  that  the 
compiler  in  joining  together  his  narratives  has  occa- 
sionally made  such  omissions  that,  while  sometimes  w^e 
have  to  our  gain  double,  or  even  triple,  accounts  of  the 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


99 


same  events,  sometimes,  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  no 
account  at  all.  There  is  an  example  of  peculiar  inter- 
est directly  connected  with  the  above.  After  Joseph's 
brothers,  at  a  later  time,  had  experienced  some  rough 
treatment  at  his  hands  in  Egypt,  "  they  said  one  to 
another.  We  are  verily  guilty  concerning  our  brother,  in 
that  we  saw  the  distress  of  his  soul,  when  he  besought 
us,  and  we  would  not  hear"  (Gen.  xlii.  21).  It  is  very 
likely  that  the  source  which  contains  this  (E)  had  a 
touching  account  of  Joseph's  plea  for  his  life,  when  his 
brothers  cast  him  into  the  pit  and  abandoned  him  there. 

VI.  We  will  pass  to  the  book  of  Exodus  and  examine 
the  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Passover. 

JE*  p 

And  Moses  summoned  all  the  Speak  unto  all  the  congrega- 

elders    of    Israel,  and    said    to  tion  of  Israel,  and  let  them  take 

them,  Draw  away  and  get  you  for  them  each  one  a  lamb  for  the 

sheep  for  your  families,  and  kill  head  of  the  house,  a  lamb  for  a 

the  passover.      And  take  ye   a  house.     And  ail  the  assembly  of 

bunch  of  hyssop,  and  dip   it  in  the  congregation  of  Israel  shall 

the  blood  which  is  in  the  basin,  kill  it    at   dusk,  and  they  shall 

and  touch  the  lintel  and  the  two  take  of  the  blood  and  place  it 

*The  symbol  JE  is  used  in  this  and  other  cases  to  denote,  as 
explained  above,  a  passage  in  which  it  is  not  possible  to  separate 
these  two  sources  accurately.  A  passage  marked  JE  may  be  from 
either  J  or  E  entirely,  or  may  be  a  combination  of  the  two.  Some 
writers  venture  much  further  than  others  in  their  analysis  of  JE 
in  Exodus  and  Numbers, 


100 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 


doorposts  with  the  blood  which  upon  the  two  doorposts  and 
is  in  the  basin;  and  not  one  of  upon  the  Hntel,  upon  the  houses 
you  shall  go  out  of  the  door  of  in  which  they  shall  eat  it.  And 
his  house  until  morning.  And  they  shall  eat  the  flesh  in  this 
Jahveh  will  go  through  to  smite  night.  And  ye  shall  let  none  of 
Egypt,  and  he  will  see  the'blood  it  remain  until  morning.  That 
upon  the  lintel  and  upon  the  two  which  may  be  left  until  morning 
doorposts,  and  Jahveh  will  pass  ye  shall  burn  in  the  fire.  And 
by  the  door,  and  he  will  not  per-  ye  shall  eat  it  with  haste  :  it  is  a 
mi!:  the  destroyer  to  enter  your  passover  to  Jahveh,  And  I  will 
houses  to  smite.  And  ye  shall  pass  through  the  land  of  Egypt 
observe  this  thing  for  a  statute  in  this  night,  and  I  will  smite  all 
for  you  and  for  your  sons  for-  the  first-born  in  the  land  of 
ever.  And  it  shall  be  when  ye  Egypt,  from  man  to  beast ;  and 
come  into  the  land  which  Jahveh  I  will  execute  judgment  upon  all 
gives  to  you,  as  he  has  promised,  the  gods  of  Egypt.  And  the 
that  ye  shall  observe  this  cere-  blood  shall  be  a  sign  for  you 
mony.  And  it  shall  be,  if  your  upon  the  houses  where  ye  are, 
sons  say  unto  you.  What  is  this  and  I  will  see  the  blood,  and  will 
ceremony  to  you  }  that  ye  shall  pass  by  you,  and  there  shall  be 
say,  It  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  pass-  no  plague  among  you  for  a  de- 
over  to  Jahveh,  who  passed  by  stroyer  when  I  smite  the  land  of 
the  houses  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt. 

Egypt  when  he   smote    Egypt,  In  the  house  shall  it  be  eaten, 

but   saved    our    houses.      And  thou   shalt  not  take  outside  of 

the  people  bowed  down  and  wor-  the  house  any  of  the  flesh    (Ex. 

shipped  (Ex.  xii.  21-27).  xii-  1-13.  46,  abridged). 

It  needs  but  a  casual  inspection  of  these  two  pas- 
sages to  see  ho\V  probable  it  is  that   they  are  parallel 

narratives.     The  essential  facts  of  the  feast  are  the 

same  in  each.     There  was  to  be  a  lamb  for  each  fam- 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  loi 

ily — except  that  P  makes  provision  for  a  family  too 
small  to  eat  a  whole  lamb;  the  blood  was  to  be  placed 
upon  the  doorposts  and  lintels  as  a  mark  by  which  the 
destroyer  (which  P  explains  as  a  plague)  would  be 
kept  from  that  house.  But  there  are  some  noteworthy 
differences  as  well.  The  order  of  "  lintel  and  door- 
post "  (JE)  is  reversed  in  P.  P  mentions  a  single 
sheep  ;  JE  uses  the  general  term  flock.  P  gives 
numerous  specific  details  which  are  not  in  the  older 
narrative. 

VII.  The  account  of  the  institution  of  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread  affords  another  good  instance  of  a  dupli- 
cate narrative. 

JE  p 

And  Moses  said  unto  the  peo-  And  this  day  shall  be  to  you  a 
pie,  Remember  this  day  when  ye  memorial,  and  ye  shall  make  it 
went  out  from  Eg>'pt,  from  the  a  feast  to  Jahveh  for  your  gen- 
house  of  bondage.  For  by  erations  :  ye  shall  make  it  a  feast 
strength  of  hand  Jahveh  brought  by  an  eternal  statute.  Seven 
you  out  from  thence ;  and  leav-  days  unleavened  bread  shall  ye 
ened  bread  shall  not  be  eaten,  eat.  On  the  very  first  day  ye 
This  day  ye  were  going  out  in  shall  stop  leaven  from  your 
the  month  Abib.  And  it  shall  houses — for  any  one  that  eats 
be  when  Jahveh  shall  bring  thee  leavened  bread,  that  soul  shall 
unto  the  land  of  the  Canaanites  be  cut  off  from  Israel— from  the 
.  .  .  which  he  swore  to  thy  first  day  until  the  seventh.  On 
fathers  to  give  to  thee,  a  land  the  first  day  there  shall  be  a 
flowing  with  milk  and  honey,  holy  convocation,  and  on  the 
then  thou  shall  observe  this  cer-  seventh  day  there  shall  be  a  holy 


102 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 


emony  in    this    month.     Seven  convocation  to  you.     No  work 

days  shalt  thou  eat  unleavened  shall  be  done  in  them  ;  only  that 

bread,  and  in  the  seventh  day  is  which  any  one  must  eat— that 

a  feast  to  Jahveh.     Unleavened  alone  may  be  prepared  for  you. 

bread  shall  be  eaten  for  seven  And  ye  shall  keep  the  [feast  of] 

days ;  and  leavened  bread  shall  unleavened  bread  ;  for  on  that 

not  be  seen  of  thee,  nor  shall  very   day   I   brought    out  your 

leaven  be  seen  in  all  thy  borders,  hosts  from  the  land  of  Egypt; 

And  thou  shalt  inform  thy  son  at  and  ye  shall  keep  this  day  for 

that    time,   saying,   Jahveh   en-  your  generations  by  an  eternal 

joined  this  to  me  when  I  came  statute.      In    the    first   month, 

out  of  Egypt.     And  it  shall  be  to  (from)  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 

thee  for  a  sign  upon  thy   head  month,  at  evening,  ye  shall  eat 

and  for  a  memorial  between  thy  unleavened   bread    until    the 

eyes,  that  the  law  of  Jahveh  may  twenty-first  day  of  the  month  at 

be  in  thy   mouth  ;    for  with  a  evening.     For  seven  days  leaven 

strong  hand  Jahveh  brought  thee  shall  not  be  found  in  your  houses, 

out    from    Egypt.      And    thou  For  every  one  that  eateth  leav- 


shalt  keep  this  statute  for  its  sea 
son  from  year  to  year  (Ex.  xiii, 
3-IO)- 


ened  bread,  that  one  shall  be  cut 
off  from  the  congregation  of  Is- 
rael, whether  a  stranger  or  one 
born  in  the  land.    Ye  shall  eat 
no  leavened  bread.     In  all  your 
dwellings  ye  shall  eat  unleavened 
bread  (Ex.  xii.  14-20). 
The  two  versions  of  this  ordinance  agree  very  closely. 
The  feast  has  the  same  peculiarities,  lasting  for  seven 
days,  and  being  observed  by  eating  only  unleavened 
bread.     The  rite  was  in  commemoration  of  the  exodus 
from  Egypt.     The  earlier  narrative  calls  the  month  by 
its  old  name  Abib,  rather  than  by  the  later  Babylonian 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


103 


name  Nisan,  but  does  not  specify  the  day.  The  later 
narrative  adds  the  penalty  of  ex-communication  for 
eating  leavened  bread  in  this  time.  The  closeness  of 
agreement  makes  it  all  the  clearer  that  the  narratives 
are  duplicate  versions  of  the  same  thing.  It  is  quite 
inconceivable  that  one  writer  would  repeat  an  account 
of  an  ordinance  with  a  few  variations. 

VIII.  The  story  of  the  spies  sent  to  the  land  of 
Canaan  affords  an  interesting  case  of  duplicates. 

JE  P 

And  (Moses)  said  unto  them,  And  Moses  sent  them  from 
Go  up  now  into  the  south,  and  the  wilderness  of  Paran  to  spy- 
go  up  into  the  mountain,  and  out  the  land  of  Canaan.  So 
see  what  the  land  is,  and  whether  they  went  up  and  spied  out  the 
the  people  who  dwell  in  it  are  land  from  the  wilderness  of  Zin 
strong  or  weak,  few  or  many,  into  Rehob,  to  the  entering  in  of 
And  they  went  up  into  the  south,  Hamath.  And  they  returned 
and  they  came  to  Hebron.  And  from  spying  out  the  land  at  the 
there  were  Ahiman,  Sheshai,  end  of  forty  days.  And  they 
and  Talmai,  offspring  of  Anak.  went  and  came  to  Moses,  and  to 
And  they  came  to  the  valley  Aaron,  and  to  all  the  congrega- 
Eshcol,  and  cut  down  from  there  tion  of  Israel,  unto  the  wilder- 
a  branch  and  a  cluster  of  grapes  ;  ness  of  Paran.  And  they 
and  they  carried  it  between  two  brought  up  an  evil  report  of  the 
men  upon  a  staff.  (And  they  land  which  they  had  spied  out 
returned)  to  Kadesh,  and  brought  unto  the  Israelites,  saying,  The 
back  word  unto  them,  and  land,  through  which  we  have 
showed  them  the  fruit  of  the  gone  to  spy  it  out,  is  a  land  that 
land.  And  they  said.  We  went  devours  its  inhabitants.  And 
to  the  land  where  thou  didst  send  all   the  congregation  lifted   up 


104 


THE   OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 


us,  and  truly  it  flows  with  milk  their  voice  and  cried  ;  and  the 
and  honey,  and  this  is  its  fruit ;  people  wept  that  night.  And 
but  the  people  that  dwell  in  the  all  the  Israelites  murmured 
land  are  strong,  and  the  cities  against  Moses  and  against 
are  fortified  and  are  very  great.  Aaron  ;  and  the  whole  congre- 
And  moreover  we  saw  the  off-  gation  said  unto  them.  Would 
spring  of  Anak  there.  Amalek  that  we  had  died  in  the  land  of 
dwells  in  the  land  of  the  south  ;  Egypt,  or  would  we  had  died  in 
and  the  Hittites,  and  the  Jebu-  this  wilderness, 
sites,  and  the  Amorites  dwell  in  Then  Moses  and  Aaron  fell  on 
the  mountain  ;  and  the  Canaan-  their  faces  before  all  the  assem- 
ites  dwell  by  the  sea,  and  along  bly  of  the  congregation  of  the 
by  the  Jordan.  Israelites.     And  Joshua  the  son 

And  Caleb  stilled  the  people  of  Nun,  and  Caleb  the  son  of 
for  Moses,  and  said,  Let  us  go  up  Jephunneh,  who  were  of  those 
at  once,  and  possess  it ;  for  we  that  spied  out  the  land,  rent 
are  well  able  to  do  it.  But  the  their  clothes ;  and  they  spake 
men  who  went  up  with  him  said,  unto  all  the  congregation  of  the 
We  are  not  able  to  go  up  against  Israelites,  saying.  The  land, 
this  people ;  for  they  are  stronger  which  we  passed  through  to  spy 
than  we  are.  All  the  people  it  out,  is  an  exceeding  good 
that  we  saw  in  it  are  men  of  land.  But  all  the  congregation 
great  stature.  And  there  we  said  to  stone  them  with  stones 
saw  the  Nephilim,  the  sons  of  (Num.  xiii.  3^,  I7^  21,  25,  26*. 
Anak,  who  are  of  the  Nephilim  ;  32*;  xiv.  i,  2,  5-7,  10*). 
and  we  were  in  our  own  eyes  as 
grasshoppers,  and  so  we  were  in 

their  eyes.  Wherefore  doth  Jahveh  bring  us  into  this  land  to  fall 
by  the  sword  ?  Our  wives  and  our  Httle  ones  will  be  a  prey :  is 
it  not  better  for  us  to  return  to  Egypt?  And  they  said  one  to 
another,  Let  us  appoint  a  chief  and  return  to  Egypt  (Num.  xiii. 
17^  18,  22a,  23a,  26^-31,  32^-33;  xiv.  3,  4). 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W.  105 

There  are  many  points  of  agreement  in  these  narra- 
tives which  are  apparent  at  first  sight ;  but  there  are 
more  striking  differences.  In  P  the  spies  start  from 
Paran  and  return  to  the  same  place;  in  JE  they  re- 
turn to  Kadesh  and  apparently  started  from  that 
place  (see  Num.  xxxii.  8;  Deut.  i.  19).  In  P  they 
spy  out  the  whole  of  Canaan  to  the  far  north  ;  in  JE 
they  go  only  to  Hebron  and  the  region  about  there. 
In  Pthe  report  is  unfavorable,  the  land  eats  up  its  peo- 
ple, ^>.,  is  not  able  to  sustain  them  ;  in  JE  the  land  is 
good,  but  the  people  are  too  strong  for  the  Israelites  to 
dispossess. 

In  both  versions  the  people  are  discouraged  by  the 
report  of  the  spies,  but  in  P  Joshua  and  Caleb  encour- 
age the  people,  and,  therefore,  these  two  are  excepted 
from  the  penalty  of  dying  in  the  wilderness  (xiv.  30, 
38);  in  JE  Joshua  is  not  mentioned,  Caleb  alone  bring- 
ing in  a  hopeful  report,  and  he  alone  is  excepted  from 
the  penalty  (xiv.  24).  The  omission  of  Joshua's  name 
in  JE  is  very  singular.  If  he  had  shared  with  Caleb  the 
hopes  of  an  easy  conquest,  it  is  difficult  to  understand 
why  his  name  does  not  appear.  This  position  of  Caleb 
is  the  same  in  other  passages  of  JE. 

IX.  The  story  of  the  tribes  to  which  the  land  on  the 
east  of  the  Jordan  was  assigned  shows  an  unmistakable 
duplication.  Reuben  and  Gad,  we  are  told,  asked  for 
the   pasture   lands   across   the   Jordan,   because   their 


io6 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 


tribes  were  possessed  of  much  cattle.     The  story  con- 
tinues thus  : 


JE 

And  Moses  said  unto  them,  If 
ye  will  do  this  thing,  if  ye  will 
equip  yourselves  before  Jahveh 
for  the  war,  and  every  armed 
one  will  get  you  over  Jordan  be- 
fore Jahveh,  until  he  has  driven 
out  his  enemies  from  before 
him,  and  the  land  be  subdued 
before  Jahveh  :  then  afterward 
ye  may  return  and  be  innocent 
from  Jahveh,  and  from  Israel ; 
and  this  land  shall  become  your 
possession  before  Jahveh.  But 
if  ye  will  not  do  so,  behold,  ye 
will  sin  against  Jahveh :  and 
know  ye  that  your  sin  will 
find  you  out.  Build  your  cities 
for  your  little  ones,  and  folds  for 
your  sheep  ;  and  do  that  which 
has  proceeded  out  of  your 
mouth. 

And  the  sons  of  Gad  and  the 
sons  of  Reuben  spake  unto  Mo- 
ses, saying,  Thy  servants  will  do 
as  my  lord  commands.  Our 
little  ones,  our  wives,  our  prop- 
erty, and  all  our  cattle,  shall  be 
there  in  the  cities  of  Gilead  ;  but 


And  Moses  commanded  con- 
cerning them  Eleazar  the  priest, 
and  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  and 
the  heads  of  the  fathers'  houses 
of  the  tribes  of  the  Israelites. 
And  Moses  said  unto  them.  If 
the  sons  of  Gad  and  the  sons  of 
Reuben  will  pass  with  you  over 
Jordan,  every  one  that  is  armed 
for  the  war,  before  Jahveh,  and 
the  land  shall  be  subdued  before 
you  ;  then  ye  shall  give  them 
the  land  of  Gilead  for  a  posses- 
sion. But  if  they  will  not  pass 
over  with  you  armed,  they  shall 
take  possessions  among  you  in 
the  land  of  Canaan. 

And  the  sons  of  Gad  and  the 
sons  of  Reuben  answered,  say- 
ing. What  Jahveh  has  said  unto 
thy  servants,  that  will  we  do :  we 
will  pass  over  armed  before 
Jahveh  into  the  land  of  Canaan, 
and  the  possession  of  our  inheri- 
tance shall  remain  with  us  be- 
yond Jordan  (Num.  xxxii.  28- 
32). 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  107 

thy   servants   will   pass   over   before  Jahveh  for   the  war,  every 
armed  man  of  the  host,  as  my  lord  says     (Num.  xxxii.  20-27).* 

The  resemblance  between  JE  and  P  is  here  so  close 
as  to  preclude  the  idea  that  independent  events  are  de- 
scribed. The  passages  are  two  very  similar  versions  of 
the  same  story.  A  single  writer  would  not  have  in- 
dulged in  such  a  repetition.  It  maybe,  as  Bacon  holds 
(''  Ex  "  p.  242),  that  P  is  here  dependent  upon  JE.  P 
has  a  different  version  of  the  penalty  if  the  tribes  of 
Reuben  and  Gad  failed  to  cross  over  Jordan  with  their 
brethren  ;  but  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  it  could  be 
carried  into  effect  after  their  tribes  were  once  estab- 
lished in  fenced  cities. 

X.  As  the  book  of  Joshua  will  come  before  us  in  an- 
other connection,  but  a  single  specimen  of  its  analysis 
will  be  exhibited  here.  We  take  a  case  from  the  story 
of  the  cunning  trick  of  the  Gibeonites,  by  which  they 
secured  a  treaty  of  peace  from  Joshua. 

JE  p 

And  Joshua  made  peace  with  And  the  princes  of  thecongre- 

them.and  made  a  covenant  with  gation  took  an  oath  unto  them, 

them  to  let  them  live.     And  it  And  the  Israelites  departed  and 

was   at  the   end   of  three   days  came   unto   their   cities   or   the 

after  they  had  made  a  covenant  third  day.     Now  their  cities  were 

with  them,  and  they  heard  that  Gibeon,and  Kephirah.and  Beer- 

they    were    near    by    them,    in  oth,  and   Kiriath-jearim.      And 

fact    that    they    dwelt    in   their  the   Israelites  smote  them    not 


Prof.  Bacon  assigns  verse  24  to  E,  and  all  the  rest  to  J. 


io8  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

midst.      And    Joshua    sent    for  because  the  princes  of  the  con- 

them,  and  spoke  unto  them,  say-  gregation    had    taken   an    oath 

ing,  Why  have  ye  deceived  us,  unto  them  by  Jahveh,  the  God 

saying,  We  are  very  far  from  you,  of  Israel.     And  all  the  congre- 

when   ye   dwell   in   our   midst?  gation    murmured    against    the 

Now  cursed   are  ye,   and  there  princes.       But    all    the    princes 

shall  never  fail  to  be  among  you  said  unto  all   the  congregation, 

bondmen,  both  hewers  of  wood  We    have  taken   an   oath   unto 

and   drawers   of  water  for   the  them  by  Jahveh,  the  God  of  Is- 

house  of  my  God.  rael :  now  we   are   not   able   to 

And  so  did  he  unto  them,  and  touch   them.     This  we  will   do 

delivered  them  out  of  the  hand  to  them,  and  let  them  live,  that 

of  the  Israelites,  and  so  they  did  there  shall  not  be  an   outbreak 

not  kill  them.    And  Joshua  made  upon    us,   because   of  the   oath 

them  on  that  day  hewers  of  wood  which  we  took  unto  them.     And 

and   drawers   of  water  for  the  the  princes  said  unto  them,  Let 

congregation,  and  for  the  altar  them  live.     ...     So  they  be- 

of  Jahveh   unto  this  day  (Josh,  came  hewers  of  wood  and  draw- 

ix  15^,  16,  22f,  26f).  ers  of  water  unto  all  the  congre- 
gation, as  the  princes  spoke  unto 
them  (Josh.  ix.  15^  17-21). 

The  reading  of  these  passages  is  a  sufTficient  justifica- 
tion of  the  separation.  The  part  assigned  to  JE  is 
complete  and  consistent.  In  P's  account  there  is  but 
one  lacuna  (marked  by  the  periods) ;  but  the  lacuna  is 
there  just  the  same,  whether  we  accept  the  analysis  or 
not.  The  closing  statement,  *'as  the  princes  spoke 
unto  them,"  shows  that  the  princes  must  have  told  the 
Gibeonites  that  they  were  to  become  hewers  of  wood 
and  drawers  of  water.     There  are  several  expressions 


THE  MODER.V  POINT  OF  J'lEW. 


log 


common  to  the  two  narratives  which  are  characteristic 
of  P  rather  than  JE.  In  the  final  revision  some  of  P's 
favorite  words  have  been  placed  in  theearlier  story  ofJE. 

The  narratives  agree  in  the  most  important  points. 
The  Hebrews — Joshua  in  one  case,  the  princes  in  the 
other — made  a  treaty  of  peace  with  the  Gibeonites, 
believing  them  to  be  a  distant  people.  When  the 
fraud  was  discovered,  the  people  were  resolved  to  visit 
their  lies  upon  their  heads,  but  Joshua  (or  the  princes) 
insisted  that  the  treaty  should  be  respected,  even 
though  secured  by  misrepresentation.  The  trick  is 
discovered  after  three  days,  and  then  the  Gibeonites 
are  reduced  to  servitude. 

The  differences  in  detail  are  no  less  striking.  In 
JE  a  covenant  is  made  by  Joshua;  in  P  an  oath  is 
taken  by  the  princes.  In  JE  news  is  brought  of  the 
deception  after  three  days;  in  P  the  Hebrews  discover 
the  deception  themselves  by  coming  upon  the  Gibeon- 
ites in  their  cities  after  a  three  days'  march.  In  P  the 
reduction  to  servitude  was  made  to  satisfy  the  people, 
who  clamored  against  the  princes ;  in  J  it  was  done  by 
Joshua  of  his  own  motion,  because  they  had  deceived 
him.  In  JE  a  covenant  or  treaty  was  made  with  the 
Gibeonites  ;  in  P  a  solemn  oath  was  taken  to  them  in 
the  name  of  Jahveh.  In  P  the  princes  were  restrained 
from  executing  the  Gibeonites  on  account  of  the  sanc- 
tity of  the  oath  of  the  princes;  in  JE  we  are  not  told 
what  impelled  Joshua  to  save  their  lives. 


no  THE  OLl>  TESTAMENT  FROM 

If  the  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch  is  not  justified  by 
a  careful  reading  of  the  passages  cited  above,  it  is  not 
likely  to  be  on  any  evidence.  This  kind  of  evidence 
can  be  multiplied  many  times  ;  but  beyond  a  certain 
point  the  increase  of  cases  would  not  affect  the  ver- 
dict. There  is  enough  here  to  satisfy  any  one  that  the 
analytical  results  are  right  or  wrong 

There  are  two  important  questions  which  remain  : 
What  bearing  does  this  analysis  have  upon  the  value 
of  the  documents  as  historical  sources,  and  upon  the 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  I  say  Pentateuch 
here,  for,  though  the  analytical  study  of  Joshua  is  in- 
cluded, the  delicate  question  of  authorship  concerns 
the  books  of  the  Pentateuch  only  ;  for  the  Book  of 
Joshua  could  never  be  regarded  as  a  work  of  Moses. 

Sayce  is  very  positive  in  regard  to  the  former  ques- 
tion. I  quote  from  his  most  recent  book  on  the 
''Early  History  of  the  Hebrews,"  p.  I03f  : 

''  It  is  clear  that  if  the  modern  literary  analysis  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  justified,  it  is  useless  to  look  to  the 
five  books  of  Moses  for  authentic  history.  There  is 
nothing  in  them  which  can  be  ascribed  with  certainty 
to  the  age  of  Moses,  nothing  which  goes  back  even  to 
the  age  of  the  Judges.  Between  the  Exodus  out  of 
Egypt  and  the  composition  of  the  earliest  portion  of 
the  so-called  Mosaic  law,  there  would  have  been  a 
dark  and  illiterate  interval  of  several  centuries.  .  .  . 
For  the  Mosaic  age,  and,  st  11   more,  for  the  age  be- 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  lit 

fore  the  Exodus,  all  that  we  read  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment would  be  historically  valueless." 

If  this  assertion  is  a  correct  representation  of  the 
conclusions  of  the  critics,  or  the  necessary  consequence 
of  their  conclusions,  it  would  indeed  be  a  serious 
matter.  But  Sayce's  statement  is  anything  but  an 
accurate  representation  ;  and  his  opinion  of  the  effect 
of  criticism  is  utterly  groundless.  A  very  large  number 
of  modern  critics  who  hold  the  analytical  view  never- 
theless believe  the  documents  to  be  historical.  Prof. 
Bacon  has  gone  as  far  as  any  critic  in  the  analysis,  but 
of  the  historicity  of  the  sources  he  speaks  thus,  in  his 
*'  Triple  Tradition  of  the  Exodus  "  : 

"When  we  consider  the  broadly  national  character 
of  J's  great  poems,  Blessings  of  Noah,  Isaac,  Jacob, 
Balaam,  Moses  ;  Songs  of  Lamech,  Moses,  Joshua, 
Deborah  and  Barak,  David.  Solomon  ;  and  the  frag- 
ments of  similar  lyrics  which  form  the  nucleus  of  a 
large  proportion  of  his  narratives,  and  compare  with 
these  the  general  spirit  of  the  document,  it  does  not 
seem  an  improbable  supposition  that  the  Bcok  of 
Jashar-Isracl  underlies  the  history  of  J  throughout  its 
whole  extent,  and  that  it  suggested  to  its  author  the 
form  of  his  history  of  Israel,  J  impressing  upon  it  its 
religious  character"  (Introd.,  p.  xliii.f.).  J,  then,  in- 
stead of  drawing  upon  his  imagination  for  his  mate- 
rial, uses  throughout  pre-existing  written  sources. 
But  this  use   of  older   material   is  not   confined  to    J. 


112  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

The  same  writer  says  further  :  *^  E  seems  to  have  had 
at  command  a  collection  of  national  lyrics  to  some  ex- 
tent parallel  to  J's  "  [ib.,  p.  xliv.). 

The  existence  of  the  Books  of  Jashar  and  of  the 
Wars  of  Jehovah  show  that  the  early  history  of  Israel, 
like  that  of  the  Greeks,  was  in  the  form  of  songs  sung 
in  praise  of  the  tribal  or  national  heroes.  These  songs 
are  historical  sources  of  the  greatest  importance.  How 
much  we  learn  of  Saul  and  David's  relation  to  him  by 
David's  song,  preserved  in  the  Book  of  Jashar  (II.  Sam. 
i.  19-27).  We  have  at  least  one  instance  which  proves 
clearly  that  such  poems  were  used  as  historical 
sources.  When  the  compiler  of  the  Book  of  Judges 
was  collecting  his  materials,  he  found  two  sources  for 
the  rising  against  Sisera — one  the  ancient  Song  of 
Deborah  (Judges  v.),  the  other  a  prose  narrative 
(Judges  iv.)  which  had  been  written  with  the  poem  as 
its  source  of  information.  The  compiler  fortunately 
incorporated  both  documents  in  his  book. 

It  is  very  true  that  many  modern  critics  do  not  accept 
all  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  as  historical.  But  the  analy- 
sis of  the  books  into  their  component  parts  had  nothing- 
to  do  with  forming  their  opinion.  The  Book  of  Jonah 
is  not  generally  regarded  as  historical ;  but  this  view  is 
not  based  on  a  supposed  composite  structure,  but  upon 
its  evident  didactic  purpose  and  allegorical  character. 
Moreover,  the  analytical  theory  is  applied  to  Joshua 
as  much  as  to  the  preceding  books,  and  what  higher 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  113 

critic  doubts  the  historicity  of  the  Conquest  ?  The 
Books  of  Samuel  are  also  composite  ;  but  they  are 
f^ood  historical  sources  nevertheless.  The  Books  of 
Kings  are  confessedly  largely  extracts  from  the  state 
archives  ;  but  no  one  regards  that  origin  as  impairing 
their  value  as  historical  sources,  even  though  the  book 
was  not  compiled  for  some  centuries  after  the  events 
described  in  the  first  part. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  on  what  ground  the  belief  in  the 
composite  character  of  a  book  is  connected  with  belief  in 
its  historicity.  Very  few  intelligent  people  of  the  pres- 
ent day  regard  the  story  of  creation  as  historical,  even 
though  they  may  believe  that  Moses  was  the  author  of 
both  accounts.  If  we  turn  back  to  the  Bethel  story, 
our  opinion  of  the  historicity  of  the  event  will  not  be 
injuriously  affected  by  the  discovery  of  the  fact  that 
we  have  three  versions  of  the  origin  of  that  name  in- 
stead of  one.  On  the  contrary,  it  seems  clear  that 
the  independent  testimony  is  the  strongest  kind  of 
confirmation. 

The  historicity  of  these  ancient  documents  is  not  in 
the  least  invalidated  by  variation  in  details.  It  is  a 
well-known  fact  that  competent  and  honest  eye-wit- 
nesses to  the  same  fact  will  rarely  agree  in  regard  to 
all  the  particulars.  Greenleaf,  who  was  in  his  day  a 
great  authority  on  the  laws  of  evidence,  says  with  ref- 
erence to  the  varying  statements  in  the  Gospels  :  "  If 
these  different  accounts  of  the  same  transactions  were 


1 14  THE  OLD   TES TA MEN T  FR OM 

in  strict  verbal  conformity  with  each  other,  the  argu- 
ment against  their  credibility  would  be  much  stronger." 
As  evidence  of  the  importance  of  such  variations,  he 
says  :  "  There  is  enough  of  discrepancy  to  show  that 
there  could  have  been  no  previous  concert  among 
them."  " 

The  question  remains  as  to  the  age  to  which  the  com- 
position of  this  history  is  to  be  assigned.  But  a  brief 
treatment  is  possible  here.  We  shall  look  at  some  of 
the  expressions  in  the  narrative  portions  of  the  three 
books,  Genesis,  Exodus,  and  Numbers,  to  see  what 
light  they  throw  upon  the  date. 

The  most  cursory  reading  of  the  books  shows  us  a 
number  of  expressions  which  betray  a  time  later  than 
that  of  the  great  lawgiver.  "  The  Canaanite  was  then 
in  the  land"  (Gen.  xii,  6);  ''the  Canaanite  and  the 
Perizzite  dwelled  then  in  the  land  "  (xiii.  7) — are  ex- 
pressions which  presuppose  the  extermination  of  the 
Canaanites  after  the  Conquest ;  for  the  occupation  of 
the  land  by  the  Canaanites  is  looked  upon  as  a  thing 
of  the  distant  past.  "Abram  pursued  as  far  as  Dan  " 
(Gen.  xiv.  14;  cf.  Deut.  xxxiv.  i);  but  the  name  Dan 
was  given  to  the  city  of  Laish  (or  Leshem,  as  it  is  called 
in  Josh.  xix.  47),  after  the  capture  of  that  city  in  the 
period  of  the  Conquest  (see  Judges  xviii.  29).  *'  These 
are  the  kings  that  reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom,  before 


*  "  An  Examination  of  the  Testimony  of  the  Evangelists," 
p.  32f. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  115 

there  reigned  any  king  over  tlie  children  of  Israel  " 
(Gen.xxxvi.  '^\) — this  statement  presupposes  the  mon- 
archy as  already  established  in  Israel. 

In  this  passage,  '*  they  were  very  wroth  because  he 
had  wrought  folly  in  Israel  "  (Gen.  xxxiv.  7;  cf.  Deut. 
xxii.  2  1),  the  name  Israel  is  applied  to  the  land  of 
Canaan;  this  presupposes  a  later  time  than  that  of 
Moses  (see  IL  Sam.  xiii.  12,  "  no  such  thing  ought  to 
be  done  in  Israel  ").  "  I  was  stolen  away  out  of  the 
land  of  the  Hebrews  "  (Gen.  xl.  1 5) — this  name  could  not 
have  been  applied  to  Canaan  before  the  Conquest.  The 
words,  "  the  children  of  Israel  journeyed  and  pitched 
in  the  plains  of  Moab  beyond  the  Jordan  at  Jericho  " 
(Num.  xxii.  i),  must  have  been  written  on  the  west  of 
the  Jordan,  hence  after  the  Conquest.  We  find  the  same 
expression  in  Num.  xxxiv.  \^,  ''the  two  tribes  and 
the  half  tribe  have  received  their  inheritance  beyond 
the  Jordon  at  Jericho  eastward  toward  the  sunrising." 
"  Jair  the  son  of  Manasseh  went  and  took  the  towns 
thereof,  and  called  them  Havvoth-jair  "  [ib.,  xxxii.41), 
a  passage  already  alluded  to,  describing  an  event  which 
took  place  during  the  Conquest  (Judges  x.  4). 

In  Num.  xxi.  14  we  have  a  quotation  from  the  book 
called  "  the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jehovah."  It  is  ob- 
vious that  a  book  with  such  a  title  could  not  have  been 
in  existence  in  Moses'  time,  before  the  Israelites  had 
waged  any  wars  other  than  the  unimportant  struggles 
with  the  desert  tribes.     The  word  regularly  used  for 


ii6  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

south  in  Hebrew  {ncgtbh)  means  the  district  in  the 
southernmost  part  of  Palestine.  But  we  find  this  word 
used  for  the  "  south  "  in  the  Pentateuch  as  well  as  else- 
where."^ The  most  common  term  for  west  {yam)  means 
seazvard.  The  sea  was  the  Mediterranean,  and  because 
this  sea  was  the  western  boundary  of  Palestine,  the 
term  was  used  for  "  west ";  this  usage  could  scarcely 
have  arisen  before  the  occupation  of  Canaan.  Never- 
theless, this  usage  prevails  in  the  Pentateuch, t  in  fact, 
it  is  the  only  word  used  for  *'  west  "  in  the  Pentateuch, 
or  in  any  other  pre-exilic  writing. 

There  are  some  of  these  passages  which  may  be  re- 
garded as  glosses  of  a  later  date;  but  all  of  them  can- 
not be  so  conveniently  disposed  of;  and  there  is,  it 
must  be  confessed,  considerable  evidence  tending  to 
show  that  the  origin  of  these  books  must  be  placed  in 
the  time  subsequent  to  the  Conquest.  The  evidence, 
moreover,  comes  from  all  the  sources,  and,  therefore, 
it  is  good  for  each  of  the  main  documents,  as  well  as 
for  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole.  The  fact  that  all  these 
sources  are  also  traceable  through  Joshua,  and  even,  it 
is  claimed,  into  Judges,  Samuel  and   Kings,:]:  confirms 

*In  Gen.  xii.  9;  xiii.  i,  3,  14;  xx.  i  ;  xxiv.  62  ;  xxviii.  14.  Ex. 
xxvi.  18  ;  xxvii.  9;  xxxvi.  23;  xxxviii.  9;  xl.  24.  Num.  xiii.  17,  22, 
29;  xxi.  T  ;  xxxiii.  40;  xxxiv.  3f ;  xxx\\  5.  Deut.  i.  7  ;  xxxiv.  3. 

\E.g.,  Gen.  xii.  8;  xiii.  14;  xxviii.  14.  Ex.  x.  19;  xxvi.  22. 
Num.  ii.  18  ;  iii.  23  ;  xxxiv.  6  ;  xxxv.  5.     Deut.  iii.  27  ;  xxxiii.  23. 

X  See  Bacon's  "  Triple  Trad.,"  Introd.;  Moore's  "  Judges,"  Introd. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  117 

this  conclusion  as  to  the  date.  It  is  generally  agreed 
that  J  and  E  were  both  composed  before  750  B.C.,  and, 
as  some  place  one  or  the  other  as  early  as  950  15. c, 
this  is  the  period  within  which  it  is  most  probable  that 
these  two  sources  were  composed. 

It  is  a  grief  to  some  to  reach  a  conclusion  which  in- 
validates the  claim  that  Moses  is  the  author  of  these 
books.  But  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  books 
nowhere  claim  to  be  productions  of  Moses.  The  titles 
which  we  find  in  our  English  Bibles,  "  the  first,  second, 
etc.,  Book  of  Moses,"  are  not  found  in  the  Hebrew  text, 
and  are  productions  of  a  time  later  than  the  Christian 
era.  The  claim  is  not  made  in  the  books  that  Moses 
is  their  author,  in  fact,  statements  are  made  which  are 
not  easily  reconcilable  with  his  authorship.  In  the 
narrative  portions  Moses  is  always  spoken  of  in  the 
third  person,  and,  as  Dillmann  says,  ** sometimes  in  a 
way  in  which  he  would  not  have  spoken  about  him- 
self."* It  certainly  would  be  strange  for  Moses  to 
write  at  the  end  of  a  genealogy,  *'  These  are  that  Aaron 
and  Moses,  to  whom  the  Lord  said.  Bring  out  the 
children  of  Israel  from  the  land  of  Egypt.  .  .  . 
These  are  they  {i.e.,  Moses  and  Aaron)  which  spoke  to 
Pharaoh  King  of  Egypt.  .  .  .  These  are  that  Moses 
and  Aaron  "  (Ex.  vi.  26f.).  No  less  surprising  would  it  be 
for  him  to  write,  "'  Moreover,  the  man  Moses  was  very 
great  in  the  land  of  Egypt  "  [ib  ,  xi.  3);  or  "Now  the 
*  "Num  ,  Deut.,  Josh.,"  p.  593. 


ii8  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

man  Moses  was  very  meek,  above  all  men  which  were 
upon  the  face  of  the  earth  "  (Num.  xii.  3). 

A  strong-  argument  already  applied  to  Deuteronomy 
is  equally  applicable  here.  Moses  is  said  to  have  writ- 
ten certain  specific  portions,  so  that  his  authorship  of 
the  whole  is  excluded.  If  the  heading  of  the  Song  of 
the  Sea  implies  authorship,  then  we  have  the  same  dif- 
ficulty of  explaining  a  joint  production  as  in  the  Song 
of  Deborah — "  Then  sang  Moses  and  the  children  of 
Israel  this  song  unto  Jahveh,  and  they  said"  (Ex. 
XV.  i).  But  we  have  these  express  statements:  "And 
Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  Jahveh"  (2*^.,  xxiv.  4), 
i.e.^  the  book  of  the  covenant  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.;  cf.  xxiv. 
7)  ;  ''  And  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out  according  to 
their  journeys  "  (Num.  xxxiii.  2),  i.  e.,  a  list  of  the  sta- 
tions in  the  wilderness  ;  ''  And  Jahveh  said  unto  Moses, 
Write  this  for  a  memorial  in  a  book  "  (Ex.  xvii.  14), 
i.e.,  the  divine  purpose  to  destroy  Amalek  ;  "And 
Jahveh  said  unto  Moses,  Write  thou  these  words  "(Ex. 
xxxiv.  27),  i.  e.,  the  so-called  little  book  of  the  covenant 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  12-26). 

Nowhere  in  the  Old  Testament  do  we  find  a  state- 
ment that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 
We  find  many  references  to  "the  law  of  Moses,"  or 
the    "book    of  the   law   of    Moses,^"    but  all  in  late 

*  Josh.  viii.  3 if.;  xxiii.  6.  I.  Kings  ii.  3  ;  II.  Kings  xiv.  6  (fairly 
exact  quotation  of  Deut.  xxiv.  16)  ;  xxiii.  25.  II.  Chron.  xxiii.  18; 
XXX.  16.  Ezra  iii.  2;  vii.  6.    Neh.  viii.  i.  Dan.  ix.  11,  13.    Mai.  iv.  4. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  ng 

sources,  not  one  of  them  belonging-  to  the  pre-exilic 
period.  We  also  find  *'  book  of  Moses,"*  and  once  **  the 
book  of  the  law  of  Jahveh  given  by  Moses"  (II.  Chron. 
xxxiv.  14);  but  these  obviously  refer  to  the  same  thing. 
It  is  evident  that  in  the  post-exilic  period  there  was  a 
book  of  laws  which  was  ascribed  to  Moses  ;  but  as 
this  is  invariably  referred  to  as  laiv,  and  never  as  his- 
tory, it  is  obvious  that  the  authorship  of  Moses  was 
connected  with  the  Torah,  and  not  with  the  com- 
pleted  Pentateuch. t 

There  are  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  which  may  be 
ascribed  to  Moses  without  repudiating  plain  evidence. 
But  that  the  whole  was  the  production  of  the  great 
lawgiver  has  an  accumulation  of  evidence  against  it 
which  is  not  easily  set  aside.  If  one  who  studies  this 
evidence  is  not  convinced  that  the  modern  theory  is 
correct,  he  must  at  least  admit  that  modern  critics  are 
not  carried  away  by  conjectural  theories,  but  have 
some  good  evidence  upon  which  to  base  their  conclu- 
sions. 

*  II.  Chron.  xxv.  4;  xxxv.  12.     Ezra  vi.  18.     Neh.  xiii.  i. 
fSee  further  on  this  distinction,  Delitzsch,  "Com.  on  Genesis." 
Introd. 


CHAPTER  V. 
Zhc  Ibeyateucb* 

3.    THE   LAW. 

IT  IS  perfectly  evident  that  there  are  three  parts  of 
the  law  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  divisions  are 
quite  independent  of  any  theory  of  date  or  author- 
ship. There  are  :  I.  The  code  of  the  covenant  (Ex.  xx.- 
xxiii.),  to  which  the  little  code  of  the  covenant  (Ex. 
xxxiv.  12-26)  is  a  parallel.  2.  The  Deuteronomic  code 
(Deut.  xii.-xxvi.,  xxviii.).  3.  The  so-called  Priest-code, 
filling  a  large  part  of  Ex.xxv.-xL,  the  whole  of  Leviti- 
cus, and  considerable  portions  of  Numbers. 

That  each  of  these  is  homogeneous,  and  each  one 
possessed  of  clear  features  which  mark  it  off  from  the 
others,  is  obvious  from  the  contents.  The  first  is  very 
simple,  dealing  chiefly  with  the  social  fabric  of  a  sim- 
ple community  living  upon  the  produce  of  their  lands 
and  herds  ;  the  second  deals  with  the  same  conditions 
more  elaborately,  and  has  a  larger  number  of  regula- 
tions in  the  religious  sphere  ;  while  the  third,  though 
not  ignoring  social  matters  altogether,  is  chiefly  con- 
cerned with  the  sacrificial  rites,  and  related  matters;  it  is 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  121 

the  Priests'  law  book,  containing  regulations  by  which 
the  Priests  ruled  the  community;  hence  it  is  called  the 
Priest-code.  The  questions  which  we  wish  to  consider 
are,  whether  all  these  codes  are  likely  to  have  come 
from  the  same  person,  and  whether  all,  or  any  of  them, 
can  reasonably  be  assigned  to  the  Mosaic  age. 

It  should  be  noted  at  the  outset  that  the  first  code 
is  said  to  have  been  given  to  Moses  at  Sinai  immedi- 
ately after  the  Exodus  from  Egypt;  the  second  is  said  to 
have  been  spoken  by  Moses  in  the  land  of  Moab  after 
the  conquest  of  Gilead  and  Bashan,  therefore  some 
forty  years  later ;  while  the  third  was  given  at  various 
times;  that  in  Ex.  xxv.ff.  in  the  third  month  after  the 
Exodus  (Ex.  xix.  if.  ;  xxiv.  I5ff.)  ;  that  in  Leviticus 
after  the  tabernacle  was  set  up,  in  the  first  month  of 
the  second  year ;  that  in  Numbers  in  the  second  month 
of  the  same  year.  Hence  the  first  and  third  were  given 
within  a  year  directly  after  the  Exodus,  while  the  sec- 
ond was  the  last  work  of  Moses,  shortly  before  his 
death.  Therefore  the  code  of  the  covenant,  and,  on  the 
assumption  of  the  authorship  of  Moses,  the  Priest-code, 
should  show  the  initial  stages  of  the  Mosaic  legislation, 
and  Deuteronomy  should  be  its  most  developed  prod- 
uct. 

It  often  happens  that  the  same  subjects  are  dealt 
with  in  all  three  codes.  Driver  has  given  a  useful  table  of 
the  Deuteronomic  law,  with  the  parallels  from  the  other 
codes  (L.  O.  T.^,  p.  73ff. ;  "Deuteronomy,"  p.  iv.-vii.). 


122  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

He  classifies  the  Deuteronomic  code  (D)under  sixty-six 
subjects.  In  twenty-six  of  these  cases  D  stands  alone ;  in 
eight  it  has  parallels  with  the  code  of  the  covenant  (J  E) 
only ;  in  fifteen  with  the  Priest-code  (P)  only;  while  in 
seventeen  it  has  parallels  with  both  JE  and  P.  D  has 
therefore  parallels  with  JE  in  twenty-three  cases,  and 
with  P  in  thirty-two  cases.  There  is  one  part  of  the 
Piiest-code  (Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.)  which  has  marked  features 
of  its  own.  It  has,  besides,  features  in  common  with  Deu- 
teronomy, and  still  more  with  Ezekiel,  though  not 
enough  to  destroy  its  individual  character.  It  is  gener- 
ally called  the  *'  Law  of  Holiness,"  and  denoted  by  the 
symbol  H.  A  study  of  Driver's  table  justifies  the  state- 
ment that  most  of  the  parallels  of  D  with  P  are  in  this 
small  section. 

Much  light  is  thrown  upon  the  whole  question  of  the 
laws  by  such  a  comparative  study  as  this  table  affords 
convenient  material  for.  We  shall  offer  some  of  the 
results  of  such  comparative  study. 

I.    THE   LAW   OF   THE  TITHE. 

P  DP 

And  to  the  sons  of  Levi        Thou   shalt  surely  And       the 

behold  I  have  given  all  the  tithe  all   the  produce  tithe    of    the 

tithes  in   Israel  for  an  in-  of  thy    seed,    which  land,    of    the 

heritance,   the  portion   for  the  field  yields  each  seed     of    the 

their  service  which  they  do  year.  And  thou  shalt  earth,   of  the 

— the  service  of  the  tent  of  eat  it  before  Jahveh  fruit    of    the 

meeting.     And  the  Israel-  thy  God  in  the  place  tree,   is    Jah- 

ites   shall    not    again   ap-  where  he  chooses  to  veh's;    it    is 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


123 


proach  unto  the  tent  of 
meeting,  committing  thus  a 
mortal  sin.  But  the  Le- 
vite  shall  do  the  service  of 
the  tent  of  meeting,  and 
they  shall  bear  their  guilt — 
an  eternal  statute  for  your 
generations  ;  and  among 
the  Israelites  they  shall 
have  no  inheritance.  For 
the  tithe  of  the  Israelites,  the 
offering  which  they  offer 
to  Jahveh,  I  have  given  to 
the  Levites  for  an  inheri- 
tance;  therefore  I  said  to 
them,  Among  the  Israel- 
ites they  shall  have  no  in- 
heritance. 

And  Jahveh  spoke  to 
Moses,  saying,  And  unto 
the  Levites  thou  shalt 
speak,  and  thou  shalt  say 
unto  them,  When  ye  re- 
ceive from  the  Israelites 
the  tithe  which  I  have 
given  to  you  from  them  for 
your  inheritance,  then  ye 
shall  offer  of  it  an  offering 
to  Jahveh,  a  tenth  of  the 
tithe.  And  your  offering 
shall  be  reckoned  for  you, 
as     the     corn     from    the 


place  his  name ;  the 
tithe  of  thy  corn,  of 
thy  wine,ofthyoil,and 
the  firstlings  of  thy 
herd  and  of  thy  flock  ; 
in  order  that  thou 
mayst  learn  to  fear 
Jahveh  thy  God  all 
the  days.  And  if  the 
way  be  too  long  for 
thee,  because  thou 
art  not  able  to  carry 
it  [the  tithe],  since 
the  place  where  Jah- 
veh thy  God  chooses 
to  place  his  name  is 
far  from  thee,  be- 
cause Jahveh  thy  God 
has  blessed  thee, 
then  thou  shalt  ex- 
change it  for  money  ; 
and  thou  shalt  bind 
the  money  in  thy 
hand,  and  thou  shalt 
go  unto  the  place 
which  Jahveh  thy 
God  chooses.  And 
thou  shalt  exchange 
the  money  for  any- 
thing which  thy  soul 
desires,  cattle,  sheep, 
wine,   strong    drink, 


holy  to  Jah- 
veh. And  if 
a  man  wish 
to  redeem 
any  of  his 
tithe,  he  shall 
add  a  fifth 
to  it.  And 
all  the  tithes 
of  the  herd 
and  of  the 
flock,  all 
which  pass  by 
under  the  rod, 
a  tithe  shall 
be  holy  to 
Jahveh.  He 
shall  not  dis- 
tinguish be- 
tween good 
and  bad ;  he 
shall  not 
change  it. 
But  if  he  does 
exchange  it, 
then  that 
which  is  ex- 
changed shall 
also  be  holy 
to  Jahveh  :  it 
may  not  be 
redeemed 


124 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 


threshing-floor,  and  as  the 
overflow  from  the  wine 
fat.  So  shall  ye  also 
offer  the  offering  of  Jah- 
veh  from  all  your  tithes 
which  ye  receive  from  the 
Israelites ;  and  ye  shall 
give  of  it  Jahveh's  offering 
to  Aaron  the  priest.  From 
all  your  gifts  ye  shall  offer 
every  offering  of  Tahveh, 
from  all  its  fat,  that  which 
is  holy  of  it.  And  thou 
shalt  say  unto  them,  When 
ye  offer  the  fat  of  it,  then 
it  shall  be  reckoned  to 
the  Levites,  as  the  produce 
of  the  threshing-floor  and 
as  the  produce  of  the  wine 
fat.  And  ye  shall  eat  it 
in  every  place,  ye  and 
your  households,  for  it  is 
your  wage,  the  portion  of 
your  service  in  the  tent  of 
meeting.  And  ye  will 
not  commit  sin  by  it,  if  ye 
offer  the  fat  of  it ;  and  the 
holy  things  of  the  Israel- 
ites ye  shall  not  profane  ; 
then  ye  shall  not  die 
(Num.  xviii.  21-32). 


or  anything  which 
thy  soul  demands ; 
and  thou  shalt  eat  it 
there  before  Jahveh 
thy  God,  and  thou 
shalt  rejoice,  thou 
and  thy  household. 
And  the  Levite  who 
is  in  thy  cities  thou 
shalt  not  neglect  : 
for  he  has  no  portion 
nor  inheritance  with 
thee. 

At  the  end  of 
three  years  thou  shalt 
bring  out  all  the 
tithe  of  thy  produce 
for  that  year,  and 
place  it  in  thy  city. 
And  the  Levite,  since 
he  has  no  portion  nor 
inheritance  with  thee, 
and  the  stranger,  and 
the  orphan,  and  the 
widow,  who  are  in 
thy  city,  shall  come 
in  and  eat  to  the  full ; 
that  Jahveh  thy  God 
may  bless  thee  in  all 
the  works  of  thy 
hands  which  thou  do- 
est  (Deut.  xiv.  22-29). 


(Lev. 
30-33). 


XSVll. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  125 

D  provides  that  a  tithe  of  the  produce  of  the  land, 
such  as  corn,  wine,  and  oil,  along  with  the  firstlings  of 
the  herd  and  of  the  flock,  shall  be  eaten  yearly  (except 
in  the  third  year)  at  the  central  sanctuary  as  a  joyful 
feast.  The  Levite  is  to  be  invited  to  share  this  feast. 
Every  third  year,  however,  the  tithe  is  to  be  stored  up 
for  the  benefit  of  the  poor.  If  the  sanctuary  is  too  far 
to  carry  the  tithe  thither,  it  may  be  sold,  and  the  money 
used  to  purchase  the  supplies  for  the  feast. 

P  (in  Leviticus)  declares  that  the  produce  of  the  flocks, 
as  well  as  the  produce  of  the  land  and  of  the  tree,  is  to 
be  tithed  by  taking  every  tenth  animal,  whether  good 
or  bad,  as  they  pass  in  single  file  under  the  rod ;  and 
this  tithe  belongs  to  Jahveh,  that  is,  it  is  to  be  given 
to  the  priests.  The  tithe  could  only  be  redeemed  by 
adding  one-fifth  to  its  value.  In  Numbers  P  prescribes 
that  the  tithe  should  be  given  to  the  Levites,  who  in 
turn  should  give  a  tithe  of  their  tithe  to  the  priests. 
Those  tithes  were  a  return  for  the  service  of  the  Le- 
vites and  of  the  priests  at  the  sanctuary. 

The  difference  here  is  of  a  most  radical  kind.  The 
scope  of  the  tithe  is  enlarged  in  P  to  include  the 
flocks.  But  the  important  difference  is  that  in  the  one 
case  the  offerer  is  to  eat  the  tithe  himself  as  a  joyful 
feast,  the  Levite  receiving  a  share  only  as  a  charitable 
gift  ;  in  the  other  the  tithe  belongs  entirely  to  the  Le- 
vites and  priests.  It  is  to  be  further  observed  that 
(according    to  the  traditional  arrangement)  D  is  the 


126 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 


later  code.  A  full  discussion  of  the  tithe  and  of  the  at- 
tempts to  reconcile  these  passages  may  be  found  in 
Driver's  '*  Deuteronomy,"  p.  i68fT.* 

2.  THE  LAW  OF  THE  SABBATH  YEAR. 

This  law  is  found  in  all  three  codes  as  follows : 

JE  D  P  (H) 

And  for  six  years  At  the  end  of  sev-  And  Jahveh  spoke 

thou    shall   sow  thy  en  years  thou  shalt  unto  Moses  in  Mount 

land,  and  gather  its  make  a  release ;  and  Sinai,    saying,  Speak 

produce;  but  the  sev-  this  is  the  manner  of  unto    the     Israelites 

enth(year)  thou  shalt  the  release  :     Every  and  say  unto  them, 

let  it  lie  fallow.  Thou  creditor     who     has  "When  ye  come  into 

shalt  let  it  rest,  that  made  a  loan  to  his  the    land     which     I 

the  poor  of  thy  peo-  neighbor     shall    re-  shall    give   you,  the 

pie    may    eat ;     and  lease    it ;     he    shall  land  shall  keep  a  sab- 

what  they  leave,  the  not   exact    payment  bath  to  Jahveh.     Six 

beast     of     the    field  of  his  neighbor  and  years  shalt  thou  sow 

shall  eat.      Likewise  his  brother ;  for  Jah-  thy    field,    and     six 

shalt  thou  do  to  thy  veh's  release  is  pro-  years    thou     shalt 

vineyard  and  to  thy  claimed.      He    may  prune  thy   vineyard, 

oliveyard     (Ex.  xxiii.  exact  payment  of  the  and  thou  shalt  gather 

10,  II).  alien,  but  what  thou  its  produce.     But  in 

*  The  difficulty  has  long  been  felt.  Tobit  (i.  7)  tries  to  explain 
the  difference  in  a  way  that  has  often  been  followed  :  "  The  tenth 
part  of  all  mine  increase  I  gave  to  the  sons  of  Levi,  who  ministered 
at  Jerusalem  ;  and  the  second  tenth  part  I  sold  away,  and  went, 
and  spent  it  each  year  at  Jerusalem  ;  and  the  third  I  gave  unto 
those  unto  whom  it  was  meet."  But  there  is  no  hint  in  Deuteron- 
omy of  a  second  tithe.  Tobit's  third  tithe  is  apparently  the  tithe 
of  the  third  year  of  Deuteronomy. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


127 


hast    against   thy  brother,  thou    shalt   re- 
lease. 

If  there  shall  be  among  thee  a  poor 
man,  one  of  thy  brethren,  in  one  of  thy 
cities,  in  thy  land  which  Jahveh  thy  God 
gives  thee,  thou  shalt  not  harden  thy 
heart,  nor  withdraw  thy  hand  from  thy  poor 
brother;  but  thou  shalt  surely  open  thy 
hand  to  him,  and  shalt  freely  lend  him 
sufficient  for  his  need— whatever  need  he 
may  have.  Guard  thyself,  lest  there  be 
an  evil  thought  in  thy  heart  to  say,  The 
seventh  year,  the  year  of  release,  draws 
near ;  and  thy  eye  be  evil  towards  thy  poor 
brother,  and  thou  give  not  to  him ;  he 
will  cry  to  Jahveh  against  thee,  and  it 
will  be  sin  in  thee.  Thou  shalt  freely  give 
to  him,  and  thy  heart  shall  not  be  evil 
when  thou  givest  to  him ;  for  because  of 
this  thing  Jahveh  thy  God  will  bless  thee 
in  all  thy  work  and  in  all  to  which  thou 
puttest  thy  hand.  Because  the  poor  will 
not  cease  from  the  land,  therefore  I  com- 
mand thee  saying.  Thou  shalt  surely  open 
thy  hand  to  thy  brother,  to  the  low- 
ly and  to  the  poor  in  thy  land  (Deut.  xv. 
1-3.  7-fO. 


the  seventh  year 
there  shall  be  a  sab- 
bath of  sacred  rest 
for  the  land,  a  sab- 
bath to  Jahveh.  Thy 
field  thou  shalt  not 
sow,  and  thy  vine- 
yard thou  shalt  not 
prune.  The  natural 
growth  of  thy  harvest 
thou  shalt  not  reap, 
and  the  grapes  of  thy 
unpruned  vine  thou 
shalt  not  gather ;  it 
shall  be  a  year  of  sa- 
cred rest  for  the  land. 
And  the  sabbath 
yield  of  the  land  shall 
be  food  for  you,  for 
thee  and  for  thy  ser- 
vant and  for  thy 
maid  and  for  thy  hire- 
ling and  for  thy  visi- 
tors who  sojourn  with 
thee ;  and  for  thy  cat- 
tle and  for  the  beast 
which  is  in  thy  land — 
all  its  produce  sha  11  be 
food  (Lev.  XXV.  1-7). 


JE  provides  that  the  land  shall  lie  fallow  every  sev- 
enth year,  the  natural  produce  of  that  year  being  free 


128  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

to  the  poor.  The  produce  of  the  vineyard  and  olive- 
yard  were  not  to  be  gathered  in  that  year,  but  like- 
wise were  left  for  the  poor.  P  is  in  close  agreement 
with  this  provision  in  one  respect  ;  namely,  that  no 
cultivation  was  to  be  carried  on  in  the  seventh  year. 
But  the  institution  is  given  a  sacred  character,  *'  the 
land  shall  keep  a  sabbath  untojahveh";  and  though 
there  was  to  be  no  harvesting  in  that  year,  the  natural 
yield  might  be  eaten  in  the  field  by  the  owner  of  the 
land  and  his  dependents,  and  by  the  domestic  and  wild 
animals.  There  is  not  a  word  about  the  poor..  D  has 
nothing  to  say  about  the  land  ;  the  release  has  to  do 
only  with  debts  and  slaves  (for  the  latter,  see  below). 
All  debts  from  one  Hebrew  to  another  were  outlawed 
in  that  year,  but  the  debts  of  a  foreigner  were  not  af- 
fected. The  law  recognizes  the  practical  difficulty 
which  at  once  arises,"^  and  warns  the  people  that  they 
must  not  refuse  to  lend  to  the  poor  because  the  year 
of  release  was  at  hand. 

It  does  not  follow  that  D  does  not  know  any  sabbath 
year  for  the  land,  though  it  speaks  of  the  year  of  re- 
lease (v.  I.)  as  a  new  institution.  But  Exodus  and 
Leviticus  certainly  deal  with  the  same  institution,  and  it 

*  All  modern  laws  for  outlawing  debts  are  based  upon  this  code. 
Six  years  is  the  usual  period  during  which  an  ordinary  debt  is  col- 
lectible. But  the  difficulty  suggested  above  is  avoided  by  counting 
the  year  of  release  from  the  time  the  debt  is  contracted.  The  He- 
brews enjoined  this  method  of  reckoning  for  the  release  of  slaves. 


THE  MODERN  POIMT  OF  VIEW.  129 

is  very  difficult  to  explain  these  two  codes  if  they  are  the 
work  of  the  same  man  and  were  issued  at  virtually  the 
same  period. 

3.  LAWS   OF   SLAVERY. 

JE  D  P(H) 
When  thou  shalt  buy  If  thy  brother,  a  And  if  thy  brother 
a  Hebrew  slave,  he  shall  Hebrew  man  or  (who  is)  with  thee 
serve  thee  for  six  years  ;  woman,  be  sold  to  become  poor,  and 
and  in  the  seventh  year  thee,  he  shall  serve  is  sold  to  thee,  thou 
he  shall  go  forth  free,  thee  for  six  years ;  shalt  not  put  upon 
without  ransom.  If  but  in  the  seventh  him  the  service  of  a 
with  his  body  (/.  e. ,  year,  thou  shalt  let  slave.  Like  the  hire- 
alone)  he  came  in,  with  him  depart  from  ling,  like  the  so- 
his  body  he  shall  go  thee  free.  And  when  journer,  he  shall  be 
forth  ;  if  he  had  a  wife,  thou  lettest  him  with  thee.  Unto  the 
then  his  wife  shall  go  depart  from  thee  year  of  jubilee  he 
forth  with  him.  If  his  free,  thou  shalt  not  shall  serve  with  thee; 
master  give  him  a  wife,  let  him  depart  emp-  then  he  shall  go 
and  she  bear  to  him  ty :  thou  shalt  load  forth  from  thee,  he 
sons  or  daughters,  the  him  from  thy  flock  and  his  children 
wife  with  her  children  and  from  thy  thresh-  with  him;  and  he 
shall  belong  to  her  ing  floor  and  from  shall  return  to  his 
master,  and  he  shall  go  thy  wine  fat  —  of  family,  and  to  the 
forth  with  his  body,  whatever  J  a  hv  e  h  possession  of  his 
But  if  the  slave  shall  thy  God  has  blessed  fathers  he  shall  re- 
say,  I  love  my  master,  thee,  thou  shalt  give  turn.  Since  they 
and  my  wife  and  my  to  him.  And  thou  are  my  servants 
children;  I  will  not  go  shalt  remember  that  whom  I  brought 
forth  free  :  then  shall  thou  wast  a  slave  in  forth  from  the  land 
his  master  bring  him  the  land  of  Egypt,  of  Egypt,  they  shall 
to  the  judge,  and  shall  and  JahvehthyGod  not  be  sold  as  the 
bring  him  to  the  door  ransomed  thee:  sale  of  a  slave. 


130 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 


or  to  the  doorpost,  and 
his  master  shall  bore 
his  ear  with  an  awl ; 
and  he  shall  serve  him 
for  life. 

If  a  man  shall  sell  his 
daughter  for  a  slave, 
she  shall  not  go  forth 
as  the  men  slaves  do. 
If  she  is  evil  in  the 
eyes  of  her  master,  who 
has  espoused  her  to 
himself,  then  he  shall 
let  her  be  ransomed ; 
he  shall  have  no  right 
to  sell  her  to  a  foreign 
people,  in  that  he  has 
deceived  her.  And  if 
he  shall  espouse  her  to 
his  son,  according  to 
the  custom  of  daugh- 
ters  shall  he  do  to  her. 
If  he  take  to  him  an- 
other wife,  her  food, 
her  clothing,  and  her 
marital  rights  he  shall 
not  decrease.  And  if  he 
does  not  provide  these 
three  things  for  her, 
then  she  shall  go  forth 
ransom  -  free,  without 
money  (Ex.  xxi.  2-1 1). 


therefore  I  com- 
mand thee  this  thing 
to-day.  And  it  shall 
be  if  he  says  to  thee, 
I  will  not  go  forth 
from  thee,  because 
he  loves  thee  and 
thy  household,  hav- 
ing found  it  well  to 
be  with  thee,  then 
thou  shalt  take  an 
awl,  and  place  it  in 
his  ear  and  in  the 
door,  and  he  shall 
be  thy  slave  for  life. 
And  thus  thou  shalt 
do  also  to  thy  maid- 
servant. It  shall  not 
be  hard  in  thy  eyes, 
when  thou  lettest 
him  depart  from 
thee  free  ;  for  with 
double  the  hire  of  a 
hireling  he  has 
served  thee  six 
years,  and  Jahveh 
thy  God  will  bless 
thee  in  all  thou 
doest  (Deut.  xv. 
12-18). 


And  thy  slaves, 
male  and  female 
which  thou  hast  of 
the  nations,  who  are 
round  about  you,  of 
them  shall  ye  buy 
slaves.  And  also 
of  the  sojourners 
who  abide  with  you, 
of  them  and  of  their 
family  which  is  with 
you,  which  they  have 
borne  in  your  land, 
shall  ye  buy,  and 
they  shall  be  a  pos- 
session for  you. 
And  ye  may  be- 
queath them  to  your 
sons  after  you,  to 
get  a  possession,  for 
life  ye  shall  get 
service  of  them. 
But  your  brethren 
the  Israelites,  each 
one  with  his  brother, 
thou  shalt  not  rule 
over  him  with  rigor 
(Lev.  XXV.  39-46). 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  131 

D  connects  with  the  year  of  release  of  debts  the  manu- 
mission of  Hebrew  slaves.  But  there  is  this  important 
distinction,  that  the  year  of  release  came  for  each  slave 
at  a  different  time;  that  is,  he  was  set  free  after  he  had 
served  six  years.  Perpetual  slavery  for  debt  was  not 
to  be  permitted  except  it  was  voluntary.  When  the 
slave  was  freed  the  law  required  that  he  be  furnished 
with  such  things  as  would  be  necessary  for  the  re-es- 
tablishment of  an  independent  life. 

This  is  a  great  restriction  upon  the  earlier  code 
which  released  only  Hebrew  men  in  the  seventh  year. 
The  woman  who  was  sold  as  a  slave  could  only  be 
released  in  case  her  master  had  married  her,^  and  then 
failed  either  in  respect  to  food,  clothing,  or  duties  of 
marriage.  There  is  a  further  provision  that  if  a  master 
gives  a  wife  to  a  slave  who  is  single,  the  wife  and 
children  are  not  released  in  the  seventh  year. 

The  Levitical  law  is  markedly  different.  The  mas- 
ter is  forbidden  to  exact  bond  service  of  Hebrews. 
This  law  aims  virtually  to  abolish  the  slavery  of  He- 
brews. They  are  to  be  dealt  with  as  hired  servants. 
Contrary  to  Exodus,  the  children  are  to  be  released 
with  their  fathers,  but  the  release  is  in  the  year  of  jubi- 
lee, the  fiftieth  year  instead  of  the  seventh.  It  is  not 
easy  to  see  by  what  harmonistic  ingenuity  these  codes 

*  This  passage  (Ex.  xxi.  8)  is  very  obscure  ;  I  have  given  thie 
generally  received  reading,  which  seems  to  me  most  probably 
right. 


:32 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 


can  be  assigned  to  the  same  author,  and  to  the  same 
era. 

4.    THE   FIRST-BORN    OF   ANIMALS. 

JE                                   D  P 

So  shalt  thou  do         Every  firstling  which  But    the    firstling 

with  thy  oxen  and     is  born  in  thy  herd  and  of  thy  oxen,   or  the 

with   thy   sheep;     in  thy  flock,  the  males,  firstlingof  thy  sheep, 

seven  days  it  (/.(?.,     thou    shalt  dedicate   to  or  the  firstling  of  thy 

thefirst-born)shall     Jahveh  thy  God.     Thou  goats,  thou  shalt  not 

be  with   its  dam  :     shalt  not  work  the  first-  redeem  ;   they    are 

on   the   eighth     ling   of    thy  oxen,    nor  holy.      Their  blood 

day   thou   shalt     shear  the  firstling  of  thy  thou   shalt   sprinkle 

give   it    to   me     sheep.      Before  Jahveh  upon  the  altar,  and 

(Ex.   xxii.  30  ;  cf.     thy  God  thou  shalt  eat  their   fat  thou  shalt 

xiii.  iif.,  xxxiv.  19     it,  thou  and  thy  house-  burn — a  fire  offering 

— both  in  JE).           hold,  year   by   year,   in  for  a  sweet  savor  to 

the  place  which  Jahveh  Jahveh.     But    their 

chooses.     But  if  there  be  in  it  any  blemish,  flesh  shall  be  thine, 

lameness  or  blindness,  any  evil  blemish,  thou  Hke  the  wave  breast 

shalt  not  sacrifice  it  to  Jahveh  thy  God  ;  in  thy  and   like    the    1  ight 

city  thou  shalt  eat  it,  the  unclean   and  the  thigh   it   shall   be 

clean  alike  (may  eat),  as  (thou  eatest)  the  roe-  thine    (N  u  m.  xviii. 

buck  and  the  gazelle.     Only  its  blood  thou  17,  18). 
shalt  not  eat;  upon  the  ground  thou  shalt 
pour  it  like  water  (Deut.  xv.  19-23). 

The  first  male  born  to  every  cow  or  sheep  was  to  be 
taken  from  its  dam  on  the  eighth  day  and  given  to  the 
Lord,  according  to  JE.  D  is  more  explicit,  and  adapted 
to  a  more  advanced  social  order.  As  the  sacrifice 
could  only  be  eaten  at  the  central  sanctuary,  the  regu- 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  133 

lation  about  seven  days  is  abolished  ;  but  the  animal 
was  not  to  be  used  as  a  source  of  profit.  D  expressly 
states  that  these  firstlings  are  to  be  eaten  as  a  sacri- 
ficial feast  at  the  central  sanctuary.  Only  in  case  the 
animal  had  a  blemish,  and  so  was  unfit  to  serve  as  a 
sacrifice,  was  it  permitted  to  be  eaten  at  home. 

P  forbids  the  redemption  of  these  firstlings,  and  pro- 
vides  that  their  blood  must  be  sprinkled  upon  the  altar, 
the  fat  burned  for  a  fire  offering — all  this  by  priests  ; 
but  the  flesh  belonged  to  the  priests.  That  the  lay- 
man was  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  firstling  it 
made  clear  in  Lev.  xxvii.  26,  "•  Only  the  firstling  among 
beasts,  which  is  made  a  firstling  to  Jahveh,  no  man 
shall  dedicate  it ;  whether  it  be  ox  or  sheep,  it  is  Jah- 
veh's."  This  distinctly  contradicts  D,  which  says  that 
each  man  shall  dedicate  his  own  firstlings. 

5.    THE   PILGRIM    FEASTS. 

JE  D.  P 

Three  times  in  Observe  the  month  These  are  the 
the  year  thou  shalt  Abib,  and  prepare  a  feasts  of  Jahveh,  holy 
keep  a  feast  to  me.  passover  to  Jahveh  thy  convocations  which  ye 
The  feast  of  un-  God ;  for  in  the  month  shall  convoke  in  their 
leavened  bread  Abib  Jahveh  thy  God  season.  In  the  first 
thou  shalt  observe,  brought  thee  out  of  month,  on  the  four- 
Seven  days  shalt  Egypt  by  night.  And  teenth  day  of  the 
thou  eat  unleav-  thou  shalt  sacrifice  for  month,  between  the 
ened  bread  as  I  the  passover  of  Jahveh  evenings,  is  Jahveh 's 
have  commanded  thy  God  sheep  and  cat-  passover.  And  on  the 
thee,  at  the  fixed  tie  in  the  place  where  fifteenth    day  of   that 


134 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 


time  of  the  month 
of  Abib  ;  for  in  it 
thou  earnest  out 
of  Egypt.  None 
shall  see  my  face 
empty.  And  the 
feast  of  the  har- 
vest,the  first-fruits 
of  thy  labor,  which 
thou  sowest  in  the 
field.  And  the 
feast  of  the  in- 
gathering, at  the 
end  of  the  year, 
when  thou  gather- 
est  thy  labor  from 
the  field.  Three 
times  in  the  year 
all  thy  males  shall 
appear  before  the 
Lord  Jahveh  (Ex. 
xxiii.  14-17). 


Jahveh  thy  God 
chooses  to  place  his 
name.  With  it  thou 
shalt  not  eat  leav- 
ened bread ;  seven  days 
thou  shalt  eat  with  it 
unleavened  bread,  the 
bread  of  affliction  — 
for  in  haste  thou  went- 
est  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt — that  thou  may- 
est  remember  the  day 
of  thy  going  forth  from 
Egypt  all  the  days  of 
thy  life.  And  leaven 
shall  not  be  seen  to 
thee  in  all  thy  borders 
for  seven  days.  There 
shall  not  remain  till 
morning  any  of  the 
flesh  which  thou  sac- 
rificest  in  the  evening 
of  the  first  day.  Thou 
shalt  not  be  allowed  to 
sacrifice  the  passover 
in  one  of  thy  cities 
which  Jahveh  thy  God 
gives  thee;  but  at 
the  place  where  Jah- 
veh thy  God  chooses 
to  place  his  name, 
there  shalt  thou   sac- 


month  is  Jahveh's 
feast  of  unleavened 
bread ;  seven  days  ye 
shall  eat  unleavened 
bread.  On  the  first 
day  ye  shall  have  a 
holy  convocation,  ye 
shall  do  no  kind  of 
work.  And  ye  shall 
bring  near  Jahveh's 
fire  offerings  seven 
days  ;  on  the  seventh 
day  is  a  holy  convoca- 
tion, ye  shall  do  no 
kind  of  work. 

When  ye  come  into 
the  land  which  I  give 
you,  and  reap  its  har- 
vests, then  shall  ye 
bring  in  the  first  sheaf 
of  your  harvest  to  the 
priest;  and  he  shall 
wave  the  sheaf  before 
Jahveh  for  your  wel- 
fare ;  the  day  after  the 
Sabbath  the  priest 
shall  wave  it. 

And  ye  shall  reckon 
you  from  the  day  after 
the  Sabbath,  from  the 
day  of  your  bringing 
the  wave  sheaf,  seven 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


135 


rifice  the  passover 
at  evening,  about  sun- 
set, the  time  of  thy 
going  out  of  Egypt. 
And  thou  shalt  cook 
and  eat  in  the  place 
which  Jahveh  thy  God 
chooses.  And  in  the 
morning  thou  shalt  re- 
turn to  thy  home.  Six 
days  shalt  thou  eat  un- 
leavened bread  ;  and 
on  the  seventh  day  is 
a  holy  assembly  to  Jah- 
veh—thou  shalt  do  no 
work. 

Seven  weeks  shalt 
thou  reckon— from  the 
beginning  of  cutting 
the  corn  thou  shalt  be- 
gin to  reckon  seven 
weeks.  And  thou  shalt 
prepare  a  feast  of 
weeks  to  Jahveh  thy 
God ;  after  the  measure 
of  the  free-will  offering 
of  thy  hand,  which 
thou  shalt  give,  as  Jah- 
veh thy  God  blesses 
thee.  And  thou  shalt 
rejoice  before  Jahveh 
thy  God,  thou  and  thy 


Sabbaths  in  full  num- 
ber, until  the  day  after 
the  seventh  Sabbath 
ye  shall  reckon  fifty 
days ;  and  ye  shall 
bring  near  a  fresh  veg- 
etable offering  to  Jah- 
V  e  h.  From  your 
dwelling  ye  shall  bring 
two  wave  loaves — two 
tenths  of  an  ephah 
of  fine  meal  they  shall 
be— t  hey  shall  be 
baked  with  leaven  as 
first-fruits  to  Jahveh. 
[With  this  were  to  be 
sacrificed  seven  lambs, 
one  bullock,  and  two 
rams,  as  a  burnt  offer- 
ing to  Jahveh  ;  also  a 
goat  and  two  lambs  as 
a  peace  offering.] 

But  on  the  tenth  of 
this  seventh  month  is 
the  day  of  atonement ; 
it  shall  be  a  holy  con- 
vocation to  you  ;  ye 
shall  humble  your- 
selves, and  bring  near 
a  fire  offering  to  Jah- 
veh. 

On  the  fifteenth  day 


136 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 


son  and  thy  daughter, 
and  thy  manservant 
and  thy  maidservant, 
and  the  Levite  who  is 
in  thy  city,  and  the 
stranger  and  the  or- 
phan and  the  widow, 
who  are  among  thee — 
in  the  place  where  Jah- 
veh  thy  God  chooses 
to  place  his  name.  And 
thou  shalt  remember 
that  thou  wast  a  ser- 
vant in  Egypt,  and 
thou  shalt  observe  to 
do  these  statutes. 

The  feast  of  booths 
thou  shalt  prepare  for 
thee  seven  days,  when 
thou  gatherest  from  thy 
threshing  -floor  and 
from  thy  wine  fat.  And 
thou  shalt  rejoice  in 
thy  feast,  thou  and  thy 
son  and  thy  daughter, 
and  thy  manservant 
and  thy  maidservant, 
and  the  Levite  and  the 
stranger,  and  the  or- 
phan and  the  widow, 
who  are  in  thy  city. 
Seven  days  thou  shalt 


of  this  seventh  month 
is  the  seven  days'  feast 
of  booths  to  Jahveh. 
On  the  first  day  is  a 
holy  convocation,  ye 
shall  not  do  any  kind 
of  work.  Seven  days 
ye  shall  bring  near  a 
fire  offering  to  Jah- 
veh;  on  the  eighth 
day  ye  shall  have  a 
holy  convocation :  ye 
shall  bring  near  a  fire 
offering  to  Jahveh.  It 
is  a  holy  festival,  ye 
shall  not  do  any  kind 
of  work. 

But  on  the  fifteenth 
day  of  the  seventh 
month,  when  ye  have 
gathered  the  produce 
of  the  land,  ye  shall 
keep  a  feast  to  Jah- 
veh seven  days.  On 
the  first  day  shall  be 
a  sacred  rest,  and  on 
the  eighth  day  a  sa- 
cred rest.  And  on  the 
first  day  ye  shall  take 
you  the  fruit  of  good 
trees,  branches  of 
palms,  and  boughs  of 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW 


137 


keep  a  feast  to  Jahveh  thickly- foliaged  trees, 
thy  God  in  the  place  and  of  brook  willows, 
which  Jahveh  chooses ;     and    ye   shall    rejoice 


for  Jahveh  thy  God 
will  bless  thee  in  all 
thy  produce  and  in  all 
the  labor  of  thy  hands, 
and  thou  shalt  be  joy- 
ful. Three  times  in  the 
year  shall  all  thy  males 


before  Jahveh  your 
God  seven  days.  And 
ye  shall  keep  it  as  a 
feast  to  Jahveh  seven 
days  in  the  year— an 
eternal  statute  for 
your  generations  —  in 


which  he  shall  choose 
— in  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread,  and  in 
the  feast  of  weeks,  and 
in  the  feast  of  booths  ; 


see  the  face  of  Jahveh    the  seventh  month  ye 
thy  God   in  the  place     shall  keep  it. 

In  the  booths  ye 
shall  live  for  seven 
days— every  native  in 
Israel  shall  live  in  the 
booths,  that  your  de- 
and  he  shall  not  see  scendants  may  know 
the  face  of  Jahveh  emp-  that  I  made  the  Israel- 
ty;  each  one  accord-  ites  live  in  booths 
ing  to  the  gift  of  his  when  I  brought  them 
hand,  according  to  the  from  the  land  of  Egypt 
blessing  of  Jahveh  thy  —I  Jahveh  your  God 
God  which  he  gave  (Lev.xxiii.4^11, 15-17^ 
thee  (Deut.  xvi.  1-17).     27,  34-36,  39-43). 

In  JE,  the  three  annual  pilgrim  feasts*  are  the 
feast  of  unleavened  bread,  the  harvest  festival — when 
the  first-fruits  were  offered — and  the  feast  of  ingather- 

*  Yi^Q.yhag,  a  festival  for  whose  celebration  the  people  went  on 
pilgrimages  to  sanctuaries. 


138  THE  OLD    TESTAMENT  FROM 

ing.  All  the  males  were  to  keep  these  feasts  before 
Jahveh,  i.  c,  at  any  sanctuary  that  might  be  conven- 
ient. In  Ex.  xxxiv.  22,  we  find  the  feast  of  weeks 
named  instead  of  the  harvest  festival;  but  it  is  evident 
that  the  same  thing  is  meant,  as  it  is  connected  in  both 
cases  with  the  first-fruits.  The  identity  of  phraseology 
in  the  two  sections  of  JE  (Ex.  xxiii.  14-17  ;  xxxiv. 
18,  20,  22-25)  offers  material  for  reflection  to  the  ob- 
servant student. 

D  calls  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  the  Passover, 
and  gives  much  more  detailed  regulations  for  its  ob- 
servance. The  Passover  festival  must  be  kept  at  the 
central  sanctuary.  This  law  is  evidently  dependent 
upon  JE's  account  of  the  institution  of  the  two  fes- 
tivals. The  harvest  festival,  or  that  of  the  first-fruits, 
is  in  D  the  feast  of  weeks.  The  time  is  fixed  by  the 
ripening  of  the  corn  ;  but  the  feast  is  kept  seven  weeks 
after  the  corn  is  ripe.  And  this  reference  to  the  ripen- 
ing of  the  corn  is  the  only  hint  of  first-fruits  in  this 
code.  In  place  of  the  feast  of  the  ingathering  we  have 
the  feast  of  booths  or  tabernacles.  The  time  is  fixed 
but  vaguely,  after  the  harvest  is  gathered.  There  is 
no  explanation  of  the  booths.  Both  these  festivals  are 
to  be  joyous  occasions,  and  are  to  be  characterized  by 
liberality  toward  the  widow,  the  fatherless,  and  other 
poor.  The  Deuteronomic  code  does  not  precisely  fix 
the  date  of  any  of  the  festivals  ;  even  the  Passover 
is   left   with   no   more   definite  date  than  the  month 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  139 

Abib.'^'     All  the  festivals  were  to  be  observed  at  the 
central  sanctuary. 

P  (in  Leviticus)  makes  a  distinction  between  the  feasts 
of  the  Passover  and  unleavened  cakes,  and  prescribes 
the  exact  day  for  each.  The  date  of  the  feast  of 
weeks  is  more  exactly  determined  than  in  D.  The 
first  sheaf  of  the  harvest  was  to  be  given  to  the  priest 
to  be  waved  before  Jehovah  on  the  day  after  the  Sab- 
bath. Seven  weeks  after  this  day  is  the  feast  of  weeks. 
The  name  feast  of  weeks  is  indeed  not  used  here  ;  but 
the  details  are  given  as  to  the  offerings,  which  are 
both  animal  and  vegetable.  The  feast  of  weeks  is  fixed 
by  P  upon  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  seventh  month. 
There  is  an  appendix  to  the  feast  regulations  which 
gives  still  another  version  of  the  law  for  the  feast  of 
booths  :  fruits,  boughs  and  branches  were  to  be  used 
as  symbols  of  joy,  and  the  people  were  to  dwell  in 
booths  for  seven  days.  There  the  feast  is  given  an 
historical  connection,  being  derived  from  the  Exodus. 

*  In  the  early  codes  the  feasts  were  movable,  because  they  were 
connected  with  the  harvests,  and  the  time  of  observance  was  de- 
pendent upon  the  ripening  of  the  harvest.  In  P  they  have  become 
fixed  (see  Addis,  "  Documents  of  the  Hexateuch,"  II.,  p.  176).  Our 
Thanksgiving  Day  is  left  to  the  civil  authorities  to  fix  according  to 
the  time  the  harvests  are  ripe,  and  this  would  be  different  in  differ- 
ent years  and  in  different  parts  of  the  country.  But  in  actual 
practice  the  date  has  become  fixed  at  a  time  when  the  harvests  of 
the  whole  land  have  been  gathered. 


I40  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

In  Num.  xxviii  ,  xxix.,"^  P  is  chiefly  occupied  with  the 
regulations  for  the  sacrifices  to  be  offered  on  each  day 
of  the  feasts.  JE  and  D  have  no  regulations  about 
these.  Leviticus  prescribes  only  that  a  fire  offering  be 
made  each  day  for  the  feasts  of  unleavened  bread  and 
of  booths  ;  but  for  the  feast  of  weeks,  two  loaves  of 
bread,  seven  lambs,  one  bullock,  two  rams,  one  goat 
and  two  lambs  (a  peace  offering)  are  to  be  offered. 
Numbers  requires  two  bullocks,  one  ram,  seven  lambs, 
and  one  goat,  for  each  of  the  seven  days  of  the  feast  of 
unleavened  cakes,  besides  the  regular  daily  offering  of 
the  morning:  for  the  festival  of  the  first-fruits,  two  bul- 
locks, one  ram,  seven  lambs,  one  goat,  are  prescribed; 
while  during  the  feast  of  tabernacles  there  was  a  total 
of  seventy-one  bullocks,  fifteen  rams,  one  hundred  and 
five  lambs,  and  eight  goats.  This  law  is  concerned 
with  the  priestly  celebration,  and  has  little  concern 
with  the  people's  use  of  the  festival. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  explain  how  one  individual,  at 
one  time,  could  be  responsible  for  such  a  varying  ec- 
clesiastical year  as  that  prescribed  in  these  various 
codes.  The  variations  are  perfectly  natural  if  we  sup- 
pose the  three  codes  to  be  products  either  of  three 
different  periods  in  Hebrew  history,  each  code  adapted 
to  the  peculiar  conditions  of  its  period,  or  of  different 

*  I  have  not  deemed  it  necessary  to  quote  this  elaborate,  repe- 
titious passage ;  the  summary  of  its  contents  given  here  is  quite 
sufftcient  for  my  purpose. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


141 


schools    within   the   Jewish   Church.     It  is   especially 

difficult  to  understand,  in  this  and  other   cases,  how 

Deuteronomy  could  have  been   a   later  law  than  the 
Priest-code. 

6.    PRIESTLY    REVENUES. 

D  P 

There  shall  be  no  portion  nor  And  the  right  shoulder  from 
inheritance   for  the  priests,  the  the  sacrifice  of  your  peace  offer- 
Levites,  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi ;  ings  ye  shall  give  to  the  priest  as 
the  fire  offerings  of  Jahveh  and  a   heave  offering.     Whoever  of 
his   inheritance  they   shall   eat.  the  sons  of  Aaron  shall  offer  the 
But  lie  shall  have  no  inheritance  blood   and  the  fat  of  the  peace 
among  his  brothers  ;  Jahveh   is  offering,  to  him  shall  belong  the 
his  inheritance  as  he    spoke  to  right  shoulder  for  a  share.     For 
him.     And  this  shall  be  the  due  the  wave  breast  and  the  heave 
of  the  priests  from  the  people,  shoulder  I  have  taken  from  the 
from    those    offering   sacrifices,  Israelites,    for  the    sacrifice   of 
whether    cattle    or    sheep  :    he  their  peace  offerings,  and  I  have 
shall  give    to    the     priest     the  given  them  to  Aaron  the  priest 
shoulder  and  the  cheeks  and  the  and  to  his  sons  from  the  Israel- 
maw  ;  the  first  of  thy  corn,  thy  ites  by  an  eternal  statute  (Lev. 
wine,  and  thy  oil,  and  the  first  vii.  32-34). 
fleece  of  thy  flocks,  thou   shalt  And  Jahveh   said    to  Aaron, 
give   to   him.     For  Jahveh    thy  Thou   and   thy    sons    and    thy 
God  has  chosen  him  from  all  thy  father's  house   with    thee  shall 
tribes  to  stand  to  minister  in  the  bear  the  guilt  of  the  sanctuary  ; 
name  of  Jahveh,  he  and  his  sons  and  thou  and  thy  sons  with  thee 
all  the  days.  shall    bear    the    guilt    of   your 
And  if  the  Levite  shall  come  priesthood.    And  also  thy  breth- 
from  one  of  thy  cities,  from  any  ren  the  tribe  of  Levi,  the  tribe  of 
part  of  Israel  where  he  sojourns,  thy  father,  bring  thou  near  with 


142  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

and  shall  come  in  all  the  desire  thee,  that  they  may  attach  them- 
of  his  soul  to  the  place  which  selves  to  thee  and  minister  to 
Jahveh  chooses,  then  he  shall  thee;  but  thou  and  thy  sons 
minister  in  the  name  of  Jahveh,  with  thee  shall  be  before  the 
as  the  rest  of  his  brethren  the  tent  of  testimony. 
Levites  who  stand  there  before  And  Jahveh  said  to  Aaron, 
Jahveh ;  like  portions  shall  they  Behold,  I  have  given  thee  the 
eat,  besides  his  sellings  (Deut.  charge  of  my  heave  offering,  all 
xviii.  1-8).  the  holy  things  of  the  Israelites, 

to  thee  and  to  thy  sons  have  I 
given  them  as  a  holy  due  by  an 
eternal  statute.  This  shall  be 
thine  from  the  holiest  things  from  the  fire :  every  holy  gift,  every 
vegetable  offering,  every  sin  offering,  and  every  guilt  offering,  which 
they  shall  render  to  me— the  holiest  things  shall  be  for  thee  and 
thy  sons.  Of  the  holiest  things  thou  shalt  eat,  every  male  shall  eat 
it,  it  is  holy  to  thee.  And  this  is  for  thee  :  their  heave  gift,  all  the 
wave  offerings  of  the  Israelites;  to  thee  and  to  thy  sons  and  to  thy 
daughters  with  thee  have  I  given  them  by  an  eternal  statute ;  every 
clean  one  in  thy  house  may  eat  it.  All  the  best  oil,  and  all  the  best 
wine  and  corn,  their  first-fruits  which  they  give  to  Jahveh,  to  thee 
have  I  given  them.  The  first-born  of  everything  which  is  in  their 
land,  which  they  bring  to  Jahveh,  is  thine ;  every  clean  one  in  thy 
house  may  eat  it.  Every  devoted  thing  in  Israel  is  thine.  Every 
first-born  of  all  flesh,  of  man  or  beast,  which  they  bring  near  to 
Jahveh  is  thine  ;  but  the  first-born  of  man  thou  must  redeem,  and 
the  first-born  of  unclean  cattle  thou  s'halt  redeem.  And  their  re- 
demption— thou  shalt  redeem  from  a  month  old — at  thy  valuation 
shall  be  five  shekels  of  silver— the  holy  shekel  which  is  twenty 
gerahs.  But  the  first-born  of  oxen,  or  the  first-born  of  sheep,  or  the 
first-born  of  goats,  thou  shalt  not  redeem:  they  are  holy;  their 
blood  thou  shalt  sprinkle  upon  the  altar,  and  their  fat  thou  shalt 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  143 

burn,  a  fire  offering,  a  sweet  savor  to  Jahveh.  And  their  flesh 
shall  be  thine  :  like  the  wave  breast  and  the  right  shoulder,  it  shall 
be  thine.  All  the  holy  wave  offerings  which  the  Israelites  offer  to 
Jahveh,  I  have  given  them  to  thee  and  to  thy  sons  and  to  thy 
daughters  with  thee  by  an  eternal  statute,  an  eternal  covenant  of 
salt  it  is  before  Jahveh,  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  with  thee. 

And  Jahveh  said  to  Aaron,  In  their  land  thou  shalt  not  inherit ; 
and  thou  shalt  have  no  portion  among  them  :  I  am  thy  portion  and 
thy  inheritance  among  the  Israelites  (Num.  xviii.  if.,  8-20). 

In  D,  priest  and  Levite  are  synonymous,  that  is,  every 
Levite  is  ipso  facto  a  priest,  and  he  is  not  to  be  denied 
priestly  duties  and  revenues  if  he  comes  from  the  coun- 
try districts  to  the  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem.  The  shoul- 
der, the  two  cheeks  and  the  maw  of  all  animals  offered 
in  sacrifice,  the  first-fruits  of  all  vegetable  produce, 
and  the  first  fleece  of  the  sheep  shall  be  given  to  him. 
The  Levite  who  came  from  the  country  districts,  who 
had  been  serving  presumably  at  the  local  sanctuaries, 
was  to  have  a  full  share  of  the  priestly  dues  in  addition 
to  whatever  else  he  might  possess.  The  expression, 
"besides  his  sellings,"  is  hopelessly  obscure.  We 
cannot  tell  what  is  referred  to  precisely;  but  the  term 
must  cover  some  property  of  the  Levite  apart  from  that 
coming  from  the  temple  service. 

In  Numbers  we  find  a  still  more  developed  condition. 
The  sons  of  Aaron  only  are  the  priests,  and  the  other 
Levites  are  subordinates,  restricted  in  their  service  at 
the  sanctuary.  The  revenues  of  the  priests  are  now 
the  whole  of  the  offerings,  the  heave  offerings,  the  veg- 


144  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

etable  ofiferings,  sin  offerings,  guilt  offerings,  besides 
the  best  of  the  oil,  of  the  vintage,  of  the  corn,  and  all 
the  first-fruits.  All  the  first-born  belong  to  the  priests, 
and  the  people  were  required  to  pay  redemption  money 
for  the  first-born  of  man  and  of  unclean  animals. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  in  the  earliest  code  (JE),  though 
priests  are  mentioned,  there  is  not  a  word  about  any 
priestly  revenues. 

7.  A  most  instructive  case,  which  shows  very  clearly 
the  independent  origin  of  the  two  earlier  codes,  is  found 
in  the  Decalogue.  Every  one  knows  that  we  have  two 
recensions  of  the  Ten  Words,  but  every  one  does  not 
appear  to  appreciate  the  significance  of  the  fact.  If  in 
any  part  of  the  Old  Testament  we  should  expect  a 
standard  and  unvarying  text,  reaching  back  to  the  days 
of  its  origin,  it  would  be  in  the  case  of  the  Decalogue. 
It  is  said  of  both  codes  that  they  were  written  di- 
rectly by  God  (Ex.  xxxi.  18;  xxxiv.  i,  4,  2Z\  Deut.  x. 
4).  While  it  is  presumably  true  that  no  one  interprets 
this  expression  literally,  still  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
the  statement  shows  the  high  reverence  in  which  these 
tables  of  the  law  were  held.  Yet  we  find  that  the  au- 
thors or  editors  of  the  different  books  did  not  scruple 
to  put  forth  versions  which  do  not  agree. 

The  most  radical  difference  is  in  the  law  of  the  Sab- 
bath, but  there  is  considerable  variation  also  in  the  law 
against  covetousness.     The  two  versions  of  these  two 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


145 


laws  are  placed  side  by  side,  the  more  notable  differ- 
ences being  put  in  italics  in  the  Deuteronomic  version. 

Ex.  XX.  Deut.  v. 

Remember  the   Sabbath  day  Keep  the  Sabbath  day  to  sanc- 

to  make  it  holy.     Six  days  thou  tify  it,  as  /ahveh  thy  God  com- 

shak  labor  and  do  all  thy  work.  ma7ided   thee.     Six    days   thou 

But  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sab-  shalt  labor  and  do  all  thy  work, 

bath  of  Jahveh  thy  God.     Thou  But  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sab- 

shalt  do  no  work,  thou  and  thy  bath  of  Jahveh  thy  God.     Thou 

son  and  thy  daughter,  thy  man-  shalt  do  no  work,  thou  and  thy 

servant    and    thy    maidservant,  son  and  thy  daughter,  a7id  thy 

and  thy  cattle,   and  thy  guest  manservant   and    thy   maidser- 

who  is  in  thy  gates.     For  in  six  vant,   and  thy  ox  a7td  thy  ass 

days  Jahveh  made  the  heavens  aiid  all  thy  cattle,  and  thy  guest 

and  the  earth  and  the  sea,  and  who   is  in  thy  gates  ;  in  order 

all    that    is    in   them ;    and    he  that  thy   majiservant  and  thy 


rested  on  the  seventh  day. 
Therefore  Jahveh  blessed  the 
Sabbath  day  to  make  it  holy. 

Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy 
neighbor's  house.  Thou  shalt 
not  covet  thy  neighbor's  wife, 
nor    his     manservant    nor    his 


maidservant  may  rest  as  well 
as  thou.  And  remefnber  that 
thou  wast  a  servant  iri  the  land 
of  Egypt,  a?id  that  Jahveh  thy 
Godbrot4ght  thee  out  from  there 
by  a  strong  hand  and  by  an  out- 
stretched arjn.  Therefore  Jah- 
veh thy  God  commanded  thee  to 


maidservant,  nor  his  ox  nor  his 

ass,  nor  anything  which  is  thy     make  the  Sabbath  day. 

neighbor's  (Vs.  8-1 1,  17).  Thou    shalt    not    covet    thy 

neighbor's    wife.     Thou    shalt 
not  desire  thy  neighbor's  house, 

his  field,  nor  his  manservant  nor  his  maidservant,  nor  his  ox  nor 

his  ass,  nor  anything  which  is  thy  neighbor's  (Vs.  12-15,  21). 
There  is  a  radical  difference  here  in  that  the  divine 


146  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

institution  of  the  Sabbath  is  placed  on  different 
grounds  :  in  the  one  case  man  is  to  do  no  labor  because 
God  rested  from  His  creative  work  on  the  seventh  day, 
in  the  other  that  the  servants  might  have  rest  as  well 
as  their  masters.  Both  of  these  might  indeed  be  rea- 
sons for  observing  the  Sabbath  ;  but  they  could  not 
both  be  the  ground  of  its  divine  institution.  It  is  cer- 
tainly quite  inconceivable  that  Moses  should  have  been 
responsible  for  both  of  these  versions. 

If  one  examines  the  peculiarities  of  the  Deuteronomic 
version  it  will  be  seen  that  the  additions  are  quite  in 
the  spirit  of  the  Deuteronomic  writer.  His  interest  is 
always  on  the  side  of  the  weak  as  against  the  strong. 
It  is  but  natural,  therefore,  that  he  should  place  the  in- 
stitution of  the  Sabbath  on  humanitarian  grounds. 
The  version  in  Exodus  is  connected  with  the  earliest 
code  of  law.  But  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  is 
based  on  the  account  of  the  creation  in  six  days;  and 
this  account  is  the  later  version  of  the  creation  story — 
that  ascribed  to  the  priestly  writer.  It  may  seem  at 
first  sight  as  if  this  is  a  case  in  which  modern  criticism 
comes  to  grief.  In  fact,  however,  it  shows  the  manner 
in  which  these  variations  originated. 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  original  form  of  this  law  was 
simply,  "  Keep  the  Sabbath  day  to  make  it  holy." 
The  author  of  Deuteronomy  not  only  states  what  the 
laws  are,  but  delights  also  to  make  appeals  for  their 
observance,  and   to  give   reasons  for  doing  so.     The 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  147 

most  common  reason  for  observing  the  laws  was  to  him 
the  divine  deliverance  from  Egypt.  This  deliverance 
would  therefore  be  brought  into  connection  with  the 
Sabbath  law.  There  had  already  grown  around  the 
ancient  law  some  details  of  its  application.  The  Deu- 
teronomist  makes  his  characteristic  addition. 

The  later  writer  who  told  the  story  of  the  creation 
connected  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  with  that 
event  (Gen.i.  i-ii.  4^).  To  him  the  Sabbath  was  older 
than  Moses,  as  old,  in  fact,  as  man  himself.  He  there- 
fore added  to  the  earlier  code  of  the  law  a  reason  for 
its  institution  in  agreement  with  his  conception  of  the 
creation  of  the  world.  This  may  seem  to  be  a  mere 
supposition;  but  it  has  this  value,  that  it  explains  the 
facts  before  us.  Indeed,  there  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  all  of  the  commandments  in  their  original  form  were 
terse  prohibitions  and  injunctions,  and  the  promises 
and  detailed  explanations  were  additions  made  later 
for  their  better  understanding.  The  student  of  New 
Testament  times  knows  that  such  additions  to  the  law 
continued  up  to  that  period,  though,  of  course,  these 
did  not  get  a  place  in  the  canon. 

Our  Lord's  statement  that  the  Sabbath  was  made 
for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath,  would  seem  to 
have  its  basis  in  the  Deuteronomic  version;  and  it  is  a 
great  pity  that  it  is  not  that  version  which  is  in  com- 
mon use  in  the  Christian  Church.  If  God  did  not 
create  the  world  in  six  days  and  rest  on  the  seventh, 


148  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

the  ground  of  the  institution  as  given  in  Exodus  disap-       < 
pears.     No  discovery,  and  no  criticism,  can  ever  inval-       I 
idate  the  ground  given  in  Deuteronomy,  because  it  is        , 
based   on  that  eternally  valid  law,  ''  Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself." 

Enough  cases  have  now  been  cited  to  make  it  evi-        j 
dent  that  the  theory  that  the  whole  body  of  law  in  the        \ 
Pentateuch  is  the  work  of  one  man,  in  one  age,  is  be-        | 
set  with  the  most  perplexing  difficulties."     The  diffi-        ■ 
culties  would  not  be  much  less  if  we  were  to  enlarge  our        ' 
investigation  and  consider  the  many  cases  in  which  the        \. 
laws  in  the  parallel  codes  are  in  close  agreement.    The        \ 
facts  which  a  comparative  study  of  these  laws  reveals 
are  the  more  perplexing  to  the  student  who  is  disposed        \ 
to  accept  the  verdict  of  the  Anglican  bishops,  that  ex- 
ternal evidence  is  to  be  given  due  weight;  for  there  is        \ 
no    doubt   that   the  laws  were  generally  ascribed  to 
Moses.     We  have  already  seen  that  while  the  Penta- 
teuch as  a  whole  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  Mosaic  work, 
even  on  the  ground  of  the  Hebrew  tradition,  yet  that 
same  tradition  does   ascribe  the  law  to  Moses.     The 
difficulty  is  therefore  of  a  disagreement  of  the  contents        , 
of  the  laws  with  the  opinion  as  to  their  origin  held  by        i 

those  who  incorporated  the  laws  into  their  narratives.  | 

I 

*  Prof.  G.  L.  Robinson  has  published  an  article  in  The  Expositor,         \ 
Am.  Ed.,  November,  1898,  in  which  he  seeks  to  show  that  there  are         \ 
no  serious  discrepancies  or  contradictions  in  these  codes.    It  cannot 
be  said,  however,  that  he  has  made  out  a  very  strong  case. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF   VIEW.  149 

The  laws  in  JE  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.,xxxiv.) are  the  simplest 
and  the  earliest.  It  may  be  well  to  examine  them  to 
see  what  aid  we  can  get  from  their  contents  to  fix  the 
date  of  this  particular  code.  It  is  desirable  to  keep  in 
mind  the  fact  that  these  laws  are  said  to  have  been 
given  directly  after  the  successful  flight  from  Egypt. 
There  was  then  gathered  at  the  mountain  a  large  com- 
pany of  nomads,  many  of  whom  had  been  engaged  in 
slave  service  but  a  few  weeks  before. 

Now,  there  are  many  features  in  these  laws  which 
disclose  a  very  different  situation.  The  slave  who 
elects  to  stay  with  his  master  was  to  stand  up  against 
the  djor  or  doorpost  to  have  his  ear  pierced  (Ex.  xxi. 
6).  Manifestly,  this  expression  presupposes  houses  as 
dwellings,  not  tents.  The  appointment  of  a  place  of 
refuge  (xxi.  13)  presupposes  a  life  with  a  fixed  habitat. 
The  laws  concerning  the  compensation  for  a  destroyed 
field  or  vineyard,  or  standing  corn  (xxii.  5,6)  presuppose 
agricultural  life  as  an  existing  institution.  So  also  do 
the  offering  of  the  first-fruits  and  of  the  liquors  (xxii. 
29;  xxiii.  19),  and  the  Sabbath  year  in  which  the  land 
is  to  lie  fallow  (xxiii.  loff.),  the  feasts  of  harvest  and 
of  ingathering  {ib.,  v.  16). 

Not  only  do  such  details  as  these  indicate  that  these 
laws  were  put  into  their  present  form  for  a  people  who 
had  already  passed  from  the  purely  nomadic  to  the  ag- 
ricultural stage  of  life,  but  the  whole  tenor  of  the  laws 
suggests  that  the  people  for  whom  they  were  formu- 


150  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

lated  were  in  a  settled  state  of  life  in  a  fixed  place  of 
abode.  The  state  of  bondage  in  Egypt  is  looked  upon 
as  a  condition  of  the  distant  past.  The  attempt  to  ex- 
plain these  facts  on  the  ground  that  the  laws  were 
given  by  Moses,  not  for  the  present  condition,  but  for 
the  future  condition,  when  the  Israelites  should  be  es- 
tablished in  Canaan,  and  are  therefore  anticipatory, 
breaks  down  at  the  start.  For  it  has  been  pointed  out 
that  the  laws  presuppose  agricultural  life  as  already 
existing. 

But  there  is  a  still  more  serious  difficulty.  The  an- 
ticipatory theory  applies  with  much  more  reason  to  the 
Deuteronomic  and  priestly  codes,  where,  in  fact,  we 
frequently  read  that  such  and  such  is  to  be  the  law 
when  the  people  shall  have  entered  into  their  land. 
Now  one  anticipatory  code  we  could  readily  understand, 
coming  from  a  man  with  the  foresight  and  forethought 
of  Moses;  but  three  anticipatory  codes,  often  at  vari- 
ance with  each  other,  only  remove  the  difficulty  to  an- 
other sphere;  and  certainly  such  an  explanation  does 
not  testify  to  the  fulness  of  Moses'  inspiration.  The 
establishment  of  a  new  law  without  repeal  of  an  exist- 
ing law,  or  even  a  reference  to  it,  is  difficult  to  con- 
ceive ;  and  in  the  canon  all  these  laws  stand  on  the 
same  plane,  though  it  is  not  possible  that  all  should 
have  been  put  into  effect  at  the  same  time. 

Are  we  then  reduced  to  the  alternatives  of  holding  to 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  these  laws  in  spite  of  the  great 


rHE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  151 

difficulties  involved,  or  else  of  holding  that  their  ascrip- 
tion to  Moses  by  the  compiler  is  either  an  inexcusable 
error  or  a  deliberate  misrepresentation  of  facts  ?  By 
no  means.  The  Jewish  tradition  which  represents 
Moses  as  the  author  of  all  Hebrew  law  has  unquestion- 
ably a  solid  basis  of  fact.  Moses  appears  at  the  outset 
as  the  great  judge.  Before  the  reputed  delivery  of  the 
law  to  Moses,  we  find  Jethro  visiting  his  son-in-law, 
and  finding  him  so  engrossed  with  the  adjustment  of 
the  disputes  of  the  Hebrews  that  he  was  likely  to  break 
down  (Ex.  xviii.).  Now  it  is  well  known  that  the  first 
and  highest  form  of  law  is  the  decision  of  the  chief 
judge.  In  the  United  States,  a  decision  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  has  a  greater  legal  authority  than  an  Act 
of  Congress.  In  fact  this  Court  has  often  set  a  legis- 
lative act  aside,  and  frequently  there  is  great  uncer- 
tainty about  an  ordinance  ;  for  until  this  court  has 
passed  upon  an  Act  of  Congress  no  one  knows  whether 
it  will  stand  as  law  or  not. 

There  is  preserved  in  the  Bible  an  illustration  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  laws  of  Moses  probably 
first  originated.  Zelophehad,  a  Manassite,  had  died 
leaving  daughters,  but  no  sons.  His  daughters  de- 
manded that  a  possession  be  given  to  them.  Moses 
took  the  case  before  Jehovah  and  decided  that  their 
claim  was  just,  and  from  that  established  the  law  of 
inheritance  (Num.  xxvii.  i-ii):  with  this  further  re- 
striction, that   daughters  who  inherited  property  un- 


152  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

der  this  law  should  forfeit  the  property  if  they  married 
outside  of  their  tribe  (Num.  xxxvi.). 

The  history  of  David  furnishes  us  with  a  similar  case. 
He  decided  that  the  two  hundred  who  had  been  too 
exhausted  to  go  to  the  end  of  the  pursuit  after  the 
Amalekites  should  have  as  full  a  share  of  the  booty  as 
the  others  :  "  And  it  was  so  from  that  day  forward,  that 
he  made  it  a  statute  and  an  ordinance  for  Israel,  unto 
this  day"  (I.  Sam.  xxx.  25). 

The  decisions  of  Moses,  sitting  as  the  supreme  judge, 
were  the  basis  of  Hebrew  law  ;  but  there  must  have 
been  a  continual  development,  as  further  decisions  of 
new  cases  came  up  before  the  successors  of  the  first 
and  greatest  judge.  If  a  code  of  laws  had  been  formu- 
lated soon  after  the  Hebrews  were  settled  in  their  pos- 
sessions in  Canaan,  the  groundwork  of  that  law  must 
have  been  Mosaic,  however  it  was  developed  to  meet 
new  conditions.  The  basis  of  the  code  of  the  cove- 
nant may  therefore  be  Mosaic,  even  though  it  did  not 
take   its    present   form    until  long  after  Moses'  time. 

When  the  Jahvist  was  writing  his  history  of  Israel, 
how  could  he  do  otherwise  than  ascribe  the  existing 
code  of  laws  to  the  great  law-giver? 

The  laws  of  Deuteronomy  are  based  upon  the  code 
of  the  covenant.  They  are  at  many  points  more  elab- 
orate and  definite,  and  new  laws  to  meet  the  new  re- 
quirements of  a  more  developed  life  find  their  place. 
These  additions  are  the  result  of  a  long  accumulation 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW. 


153 


of  judicial  decisions  ;  but  the  final  codifier  would  have 
seemed  intolerably  arrogant  to  his  contemporaries  if 
he  had  associated  any  other  name  than  Moses  with 
those  laws. 

The  student  of  Hebrew  uses  to-day  the  twenty-sixth 
edition  of  Gesenius's  Hebrew  Grammar.  It  has  been 
rhany  years  since  the  book  received  its  last  revision  at 
the  hand  of  its  author.  The  present  grammar  contains 
a  large  amount  of  material  of  which  Gesenius  knew 
nothing.  These  additions  and  changes  have  been 
necessary  to  keep  the  book  abreast  of  the  times.  But 
one  reading  the  book  has  no  means  of  knowing  what 
belongs  to  the  original  author,  and  what  is  the  result 
of  successive  editings.  Nevertheless,  he  feels  that  he 
is  committing  no  sin  when  he  calls  the  book  Gesenius's 
Grammar ;  and  that  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact^  its  usual 
designation. 

The  Priest-code  offers  much  more  serious  difficulties. 
It  not  only  is  not  consistent  with  the  other  codes,  but, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  not  always  consistent  with  itself. 
These  inconsistencies  are,  however,  easily  explained 
on  the  probable  hypothesis  that  the  Priest-code,  like 
the  civil  code,  was  the  result  of  a  long  growth,  there 
being  no  pains  to  reconcile  the  earlier  and  the  later  por- 
tions. Some  portions  of  P  may  be  as  early  as  Moses. 
But  the  date  of  the  completed  code,  as  we  now  have 
it,  is  not  so  easily  ascertainable,  and  it  is  not  easy  to 
find  a  satisfactory  Mosaic  basis  for  it.     While  it  is  true 


154  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

that  a  large  number  of  critics  at  the  present  day  regard 
this  code  in  its  present  form  as  a  post-exilic  product, 
there  are  some  who  adhere  to  the  view  of  Diilmann 
that  it  is  pre-exilic.  It  does  not  fall  to  us  to  attempt 
to  decide  this  question  ;  but  it  is  desirable  to  set  forth 
some  of  the  facts  which  anyone  must  reckon  with  who 
attempts  to  settle  the  date  of  this  code. 

The  attitude  of  the  greatest  of  the  pre-exilic  proph- 
ets is  extremely  hard  to  reconcile  with  the  theory  of 
the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Priest-code.  On  the  face  of 
it  there  seems  to  be  a  strong  antipathy  toward  the 
ceremonial  law  as  such.  The  following  passages  will 
repay  careful  consideration  : 

"  I  hate,  I  scorn  your  feasts,  and  I  delight  not  in  your  sacred  as- 
semblies. If  ye  offer  to  me  burnt  offerings  and  your  vegetable 
offerings,  I  will  not  favor  them,  and  your  fat  peace  offerings  I  will 
not  regard.  Take  away  from  me  the  noise  of  thy  songs,  and  the 
melody  of  thy  viols  let  me  not  hear  "  (Amos  v.  21-23). 

"  For  I  desire  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice  :  knowledge  of  God,  rather 
than  burnt  offerings"  (Hosea  vi.  6;  cf.  I.  Sam.  xv.  22;  Matt,  vii.  2iff.; 
ix.  13;  xii.  3ff.). 

"  With  what  shall  I  come  before  Jahveh }  With  what  shall  I 
bow  down  to  the  high  God  }  Shall  I  come  before  him  with  burnt 
offerings,  with  calves  a  year  old  ?  Will  Jahveh  be  pleased  with 
thousands  of  rams,  with  myriad  streams  of  oil.^  Shall  I  give  my 
first-born  for  my  transgression,  the  fruit  of  my  body  for  the  sin  of 
my  soul  ?  O  man,  he  has  made  known  to  thee  what  is  good  :  and 
what  does  Jahveh  demand  of  thee  but  to  do  justice,  and  to  love 
mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God?"  (Mich.  vi.  6-8). 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  155 

"Why  is  there  to  me  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices,  saith  Jah- 
veh  ?  I  am  satiated  with  burnt  offerings,  rams,  and  fat  beasts  : 
and  I  Hke  not  the  blood  of  bullocks  and  rams  and  goats.  When 
ye  come  to  see  my  face,  who  has  asked  this  of  your  hands — to 
trample  my  courts  ?  Bring  me  no  more  empty  offerings  ;  incense 
is  an  abomination  to  me  ;  new  moon  and  sabbath,  the  convoking  of 
assemblies — I  cannot  endure  sin  and  sacred  assembly.  Your  new 
moons  and  your  fixed  feasts  my  soul  hates ;  they  have  become  a 
burden  upon  me,  which  I  am  weary  of  bearing"  (Isa.  i.  11-14). 

"  Why  now  does  incense  from  Sheba  come  to  me  ?  and  sweet 
cane  from  a  distant  land  ?  Your  burnt  offerings  are  no  delight, 
and  your  sacrifices  are  not  agreeable  to  me"  (Jer.  vi.  20), 

It  is  true  that  these  passages  are  often  explained  as 
referring  to  the  abuse  of  the  sacrificial  system.  Un- 
doubtedly it  was  abused  in  the  time  of  the  prophets,  as 
in  the  time  of  our  Lord.  But  if  the  Priest-code  had 
been  known  by  these  prophets  to  be  a  work  of  Moses, 
a  work  of  divine  sanction  and  authority;  would  they 
have  spoken  in  such  a  way  as  to  leave  in  doubt,  to  say 
the  least,  their  meaning?  There  are,  however,  two 
passages  which  are  not  susceptible  of  such  an  easy  ex- 
planation. 

"  Did  ye  bring  me  sacrifices  and  offerings  the  forty  years  in  the 
wilderness,  O  house  of  Israel  ?  '  (Amos  v.  25) — evidently  implying  a 
negative  answer.  "  Thus  saith  Jahveh  Sabaoth  the  God  of  Israel : 
Add  to  your  sacrifices  and  eat  flesh  ;  for  I  did  not  speak  to  your 
fathers,  nor  did  I  command  them,  in  the  day  of  my  bringing  them 
from  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifice  " 
(Jer.  vii.  2 if.). 


156  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

These  statements  are  quite  at  variance  with  the 
priestly  conception  of  the  law  as  originating  at  the 
very  dawn  of  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  substance  of  the 
priestly  code  is  fairly  summed  up  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  "without  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  re- 
mission of  sins."  It  is  quite  impossible  to  ascribe  such 
a  doctrine  to  the  prophets  quoted  above.  This  is  a 
case,  and  by  no  means  the  only  one,  where  Jewish 
tradition  has  put  an  unnecessary  burden  upon  the 
Christian  conscience,  in  that  it  represents  the  prophets 
as  assailing  the  institutions  of  Moses.  If  the  Priest-code 
is  a  product  of  the  post-exilic  age,  the  difficulty  at  once 
disappears  of  itself.  The  voice  of  prophecy  died  out  in 
that  period.  In  Haggai,  Zechariah  and  Malachi,  the 
voice  is  feeble  as  compared  with  Isaiah  and  Amos.  In 
the  age  of  the  Maccabees  the  people  lament  that  there 
is  no  prophet  to  tell  them  what  to  do  with  the  stones 
they  had  pulled  down  from  the  altar  (I.  Mac.  iv.  46  ; 
cf.  ix.  27).  But  their  conception  of  the  prophet  shows 
how  little  they  understood  the  greatness  of  their  own 
prophets  of  the  past.  Prophecy  as  a  divine  institution 
belongs  to  the  pre-exilic  and  the  exilic  age.  The  re- 
ligion of  the  Jews  in  the  post-exilic  age  became  from 
the  start  sacerdotal.  The  Priest-code  got  a  hold  then, 
and  kept  its  hold,  and  was  in  full  force  at  the  advent 
of  our  Lord. 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  sacerdotal  sys- 


THE  MODERN-  POINT  OF  VIEW.  157 

tem  of  the  Jews  was  of  divine  origin.  But  the  priestly 
and  prophetic  find  no  reconciliation  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  whether  they  waged  war  in  the  same  period,  as 
Jewish  tradition  requires  us  to  hold,  or  were  the  prod- 
ucts of  successive  ages,  as  modern  criticism  holds,  the 
two  systems  find  a  harmonious  place  side  by  side  only 
in  Christianity.  It  certainly  is  easier  to  believe  that 
God  gave  to  each  age  what  was  best  for  it — so  the 
prophets  to  one  age,  and  the  priests  to  another — than 
that  He  at  one  time  raised  up  both  prophets  and  priests 
at  warfare  with  each  other. 

The  nearest  approach  in  the  Old  Testament  to  a 
reconciliation  between  these  two  religious  institutions 
is  in  the  prophet  Ezekiel.  He  was  priest  and  prophet 
both.  He  belonged  to  the  highest  family  of  priests, 
that  of  Zadok.  Jeremiah  v/as  a  priest,  too,  but  the 
prophet  in  him  buries  the  priest  entirely  out  of  sight. 
But  in  Ezekiel,  while  he  was  a  real  prophet,  though  not 
a  great  one,  the  priest,  too,  is  always  in  evidence.  If 
therefore  any  prophet  would  have  had  a  veneration  for 
a  priestly  law  dating  back  to  Moses,  Ezekiel  would 
have  been  that  one.  But  the  fact  is  that  this  prophet 
by  the  Chebar  drew  up  a  priestly  law  of  his  own,  and 
that  quite  different  from  the  Priest-code.  This  is  not 
less  remarkable  when  we  recall  the  circumstances 
under  which  this  prophet  formulated  his  law. 

After  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  Ezekiel,  in  confident  ex- 
pectation that  the  exiles  would  be  restored  to  their 


158  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

own  land,  drew  up  a  constitution  for  the  new  state. 
His  interest  was  largely  in  the  ceremonial  fabric. 
Ezekiel  marks  a  transition  from  the  prophetic  code  of 
Deuteronomy  to  the  Priest-code.  We  have  already 
seen  that  in  the  former  every  Levite  is  at  least  poten- 
tially a  priest,  while  in  the  latter,  only  the  family  of 
Aaron  are  priests,  the  mass  of  the  Levites  doing  the 
common  service  at  the  sanctuary.  Ezekiel  explains 
the  transition.  The  Levites  had  served  as  priests  at 
the  local  shrines,  the  high  places,  and  for  this  offence 
they  are  reduced,  having  oversight  at  the  gates  of  the 
house,  and  ministering  in  the  house  :  "  They  shall  slay 
the  burnt  offering  and  the  sacrifice  for  the  people" 
(Ezek.  xHv.  ii). 

The  offering  for  the  day  of  atonement  in  Ezekiel 
(xlv.  i8ff.),  is  a  young  bullock,  whose  blood  is  to  be 
placed  upon  the  doorposts  of  the  temple,  upon  the 
four  corners  of  the  ledges  of  the  altar,  and  upon  the 
posts  of  the  gate  of  the  inner  court.  Moreover,  in 
Ezekiel,  this  day  of  atonement  comes  twice  a  year : 
on  New  Year's  day,  and  on  the  first  day  of  the  seventh 
month.^ 

In  Lev.  xvi.  we  find  a  very  elaborate  ritual  for  this 
day,  which  is  the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month. 
Besides  the  bullock  there  were  two  goats,  one  the 
scapegoat,  the  other  a  burnt  offering.     The  blood  of 

*  Adopiing  in  Ezek.  xlv.  20  the  more  probable  text  of  the  LXX.: 
see  Davidson,  "  Camb.  Bib.,"  /«  loc. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  159 

the  bullock  and  of  the  goat  was  to  be  sprinkled  upon 
the  mercy-seat  and  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar. 

Ezekiel  forbids  a  priest  to  marry  any  divorced 
woman,  or  any  widow  save  that  of  a  priest  (xliv.  22). 
He  makes  no  allusion  anywhere  to  a  high  priest.  In 
Leviticus  the  priests  are  forbidden  to  marry  a  harlot 
or  any  one  divorced  ;  but  they  are  permitted  to  marry 
widows  (xxi.  7)  ;  the  high  priest,  however,  is  permitted 
to  marry  no  one  but  a  Jewish  virgin-  (v.  14). 

Many  other  indications  point  to  the  late  date  of  this 
law.  There  is  no  evidence  in  the  pre-exilic  history  or 
literature  of  the  existence  of  this  code,  while  there  are 
many  things  done  which  are  at  variance  with  its  regu- 
lations. Kings  offer  sacrifice ;  many  served  as  priests 
who  were  not  even  of  the  Levitical  stock  ;  both  Joshua 
(Ex.  xxxiii.  11)  and  Samuel  (I.  Sam.  iii.  3ff.)  performed 
functions  in  the  sanctuary  which  this  code  permits  only 
the  Levites  to  do  ;  the  Ark  was  taken  into  battle,  and 
when  it  was  carried  back,  Uzzah,  who  was  neither 
priest  nor  Levite,  was  its  guardian. -'- 

On  the  other  hand,  when  we  come  into  the  age  after 
Ezra  we  find  the  regulations  of  this  code  coming  to 
the  front  ;  and  it  made  its  way  until  the  hierarchy  be- 
came predominant ;  and  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  this 
code  was  the  norm  of  religious  practice. 

The  caution  cannot  be  too  often  expressed  that  a 

*  See  further  Davidson,  "  Camb.  Bib.,"  p.  liii. 
t  See  further  on  the  date  of  P,  L.  O.  T.^  p.  issff. 


i6o  THE  OLD   TESTA  ME  N'T. 

careful  distinction  must  be  made  between  the  date  of 
priestly  institutions  and  the  date  of  the  completed  form 
of  the  priestly  law.  The  latter  only  has  been  the  sub- 
ject of  our  investigation.  A  system  of  sacrifices  can 
be  clearly  traced  from  the  beginning  of  Hebrew  his- 
tory. At  times,  also,  it  appears  that  there  were  clearly 
understood  regulations,  as,  for  example,  in  I.  Sam.  ii. 
I2ff.;  but  it  is  not  certain  that  the  system  was  at  this 
time  governed  by  a  written  law.  Certain  parts  of  the 
priestly  law,  even  in  its  written  form,  may  go  back  to 
an  early  date ;  but  this  admission  does  not  settle  the 
question  as  to  when  the  present  law  took  its  final  shape. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


^be  Ibietoiical  ffioofte. 

THE  analysis  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
goes  much  beyond  the  Hexateuch.  It  is  and 
must  be  carried  to  the  historical  books  as  well. 
In  fact,  some  of  them,  notably  Judges  and  Kings,  are, 
on  their  face,  compilations  for  a  distinct  purpose.  It 
is  apparent  that  we  shall  be  unable  to  understand  the 
real  facts  of  the  history  without  analyzing  the  books 
as  far  as  possible  into  their  original  parts,  and  inter- 
preting the  facts  accordingly.  There  are  some  parts 
of  the  historical  books  which  are  peculiarly  illuminated 
by  this  analysis.  The  first  case  to  be  considered  is, 
however,  not  one  involving  so  much  the  analysis  of  a 
book  as  the  comparison  of  stories  which  have  been 
preserved  for  the  most  part  in  different  books. 

The  story  of  the  Conquest  of  Canaan  begins  in 
Joshua,  and  ends  properl}^  in  Samuel.  But  for  our  pur- 
pose we  need  at  present  to  consider  only  the  books 
of  Joshua  and  Judges.  There  is  similar  evidence  for 
the  analysis  of  Joshua  as  for  the  other  books  already 
considered.  But  that  analysis  is  not  material  for  the 
purpose  in  view,  which  is  to  consider  the  Conquest  in 
a  general  review.     The  book  of  Joshua  falls  into  two 


i62  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

parts,  chaps,  i.-xii.,  containing  the  story  of  the  Con- 
quest, and  chaps,  xiii.-xxiv.,  the  assignment  of  the 
land  among  the  tribes,  with  Joshua's  farewell  dis- 
courses. The  story  told  in  chaps,  i.-xii.,  in  the 
main,  moves  along  consistently.  We  must  follow 
briefly  the  fortunes  of  Israel  as  there  outlined. 

After  many  years  of  the  hard  discipline  of  the  wilder- 
ness, Joshua  is  called  upon  to  move  forward  across  the 
Jordan.  The  tribes  to  whom  land  had  been  assigned 
on  the  east  of  the  Jordan  were  summoned  to  join  the 
forces  of  Israel.  Like  a  prudent  general,  Joshua  sent 
spies  within  the  enemy's  fortifications,  so  as  to  know 
accurately  their  strength.  The  spies  barely  escaped 
capture,  but  were  enabled  to  report  that  the  Canaanites 
were  in  gr^at  alarm  at  the  approach  of  the  Hebrews. 
With  this  encouraging  news,  Joshua  led  his  forces 
across  the  Jordan,  Reuben  and  Gad  in  the  van,  and  went 
into  camp  at  Gilgal.  At  this  place  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision was  reinstituted  and  the  Passover  celebrated. 

Joshua  had  realized  in  advance  that  Jericho  was  the 
necessary  base  of  operations  in  Canaan,  and  he  soon 
turned  his  attention  to  that  city.  At  first  he  appears 
to  have  tried  a  siege,  but  soon  made  a  successful  as- 
sault."^ 

With   this  advantageous  point  gained,  Joshua  pro- 

*  The  capture  of  this  city  Sayce  does  not  attempt  to  explain  ;  he 
says  simply  that  it  was  "  invested  and  captured  in  spite  of  its 
strong  walls  "  ("  Early  History  of  the  Hebrews,"  p.  250). 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  163 

ceeded  to  Ai.  But  the  first  success  had  made  the 
people  too  confident.  Acting  on  the  advice  of  the 
spies  who  had  investigated  the  place,  but  a  small  force 
was  sent  to  the  attack,  and  it  was  easily  repulsed 
with  considerable  loss.  Realizing  the  disastrous  effects 
of  a  defeat  at  this  time,  in  that  it  would  depress  his 
own  forces  and  encourage  the  enemy,  Joshua  hastened 
to  repair  the  damage.  By  a  clever  ambush  the  men 
of  Ai  were  drawn  out  of  the  city,  to  a  point  where  the 
divided  Israelites  attacked  their  front  and  rear.  The 
inevitable  victory  was  soon  gained. 

The  cities  of  Canaan,  like  the  cities  of  ancient 
Greece  or  mediaeval  Germany,  were  independent. 
But  as  they  came  to  realize  the  grave  danger  from  the 
invading  hosts,  there  were  two  confederacies  formed, 
one  in  the  north  and  the  other  in  the  south. 

There  was  one  people  among  the  tribes  of  Canaan 
who  preferred  diplomacy  to  war.  The  Gibeonites  re- 
fused to  fight,  and  in  fact  put  themselves  under 
Joshua's  protection.  Joshua  learned  of  the  siege  of 
Gibeon  by  the  confederates,  who  were  determined  to 
punish  this  tribe  for  their  surrender,  and  made  a  forced 
night  march  to  the  rescue.  The  battle  was  long  and 
bloody,  but  a  hailstorm  at  a  timely  moment  spread 
confusion  among  the  allies,  and  the  whole  of  Southern 
Palestine  was  opened  to  the  invaders  by  the  crushing 
of  these  armies  and  the  slaughter  of  the  five  kings. 
The   cities  of  Libnah,  Lachish,    Hebron,    Debir,  and 


i64  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

others,  fell  into  Joshua's  hands.  The  story  of  the  cam- 
paig-n  ends  with  this  summary  statement  :  '*So  Joshua 
smote  all  the  land,  the  hill  country  and  the  south,  and 
the  lowland,  and  the  slopes,  and  all  their  kings  ;  he 
left  none  remaining.  And  Joshua  smote  them  from 
Kadesh-barnea  even  unto  Gaza,  and  all  the  country  of 
Goshen,  even  unto  Gibeon.  And  all  these  kings  and 
their  land  did  Joshua  take  at  one  time,  because  Jahveh, 
the  God  of  Israel,  fought  for  Israel.  And  Joshua  re- 
turned, and  all  Israel  with  him,  unto  the  camp  at  Gil- 
gal"  (Josh.  X.  4of.'). 

The  northern  alliance  which  confronted  Joshua  on  his 
second  campaign  was  trery  formidable.  **The  kings 
went  out,  they  and  all  their  host  with  them,  much  peo- 
ple, even  as  the  sand  that  is  upon  the  seashore  in  mul- 
titude, with  horses  and  chariots  very  many  "  (Josh.  xi.  4). 
With  his  usual  clever  generalship,  Joshua  succeeded 
in  taking  this  vast  army  by  surprise,  and  routed  them 
completely  before  they  could  recover. 

The  brief  account  of  this  campaign  closes  with  a 
summary  of  the  victories,  saying  that  it  extended  now 
on  the  north  as  far  as  Hermon.  Moreover,  it  was  a 
war  of  extermination,  the  inhabitants  being  invariably 
put  to  the  sword.  At  the  end  it  is  said  that  "Joshua 
took  the  whole  land,  according  to  all  that  Jahveh 
spake  unto  Moses :  and  Joshua  gave  it  for  an  inheri- 
tance unto  Israel  according  to  the  divisions  by  their 
tribes.     And  the  land  had  rest  from  war  "  (Josh.  xi.  23). 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  165 

Thirty-one  kings,  including  the  King-  of  Jerusalem, 
who  is  not  before  mentioned,  fell  a  prey  to  the  sword 
of  Joshua. 

The  enemies  remaining  were  the  Philistines  on  the 
west,  and  various  other  tribes  far  to  the  north  and  to  the 
south.  But  all  the  main  part  of  Canaan  was  cleared  of 
the  enemy.  As  Joshua  was  now  advanced  in  years,  he 
assigned  the  conquered  land  to  the  various  tribes,  and 
they  proceeded  to   occupy  their  several  allotments. 

The  material  in  the  narrative  on  which  the  above 
sketch  is  based  is,  as  has  already  been  said,  of  varying 
date,  some  being  early  and  some  late.  But  the  early 
narrative  has  been  in  large  part  so  edited  that  the  story 
in  its  general  outHne  is  consistent  and  straightforward. 
It  should  be  added,  however,  that  most  of  the  sweeping 
statements  about  Joshua's  great  successes  are  due  to  a 
later  editor.  There  are  two  obvious  features  of  the  cam- 
paign as  thus  described.  (l)  The  whole  body  of  Israel, 
including  the  trans-Jordanic  tribes,  fought  in  one  body 
under  Joshua,  and  (2)  the  sword  was  not  sheathed  until 
the  conquest  of  the  land  afterwards  occupied  by  the 
Hebrews  was  absolutely  complete.  In  the  second  part 
of  the  book,  chaps,  xiii.-xxiv.,  in  the  midst  of  lists  of 
cities,  etc.,  we  find  frequent  notices  not  easy  to  recon- 
cile with  the  situation  above  described.* 

*Thus  in  Josh.  xv.  14  it  is  staled  that  Caleb  took  Hebron,  where- 
as it  is  stated  in  Josh.  x.  36  that  Joshua  took  it,  and  in  Judges  i.  10, 
that  Judah  took  it  (cf.  i.  20).     In  Josh.  xv.  63  we  have  a  statement 


i66  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

When  we  turn  to  the  first  chapter  of  the  book  of 
Judges,  we  find  a  complete,  though  brief,  account  of 
the  Conquest,  which  no  human  ingenuity  has  ever  been 
able  to  reconcile  with  the  above  story.  It  is  there 
stated  that,  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  the  Israelites  in- 
quired of  Jehovah  who  of  them  should  first  go  up 
against  the  Canaanites,  and  the  reply  was,  Judah.  This 
is  evidently  a  very  different  situation.  Though  the  time 
is  given  as  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  the  conquest  of 
Canaan  has  not  yet  been  begun;  the  Israelites  are  still 
at  Jericho  (Judges  i.  i6).  Instead  of  a  campaign  of  united 
Israel,  Judah  is  the  first  tribe  to  attempt  to  get  a  foot- 
hold in  Canaan.  Simeon  was  induced  to  go  with 
Judah,  and  it  is  stated  that  in  the  course  of  the  cam- 
that  the  children  of  Judah  could  not  drive  the  Jebusites  from  Jeru- 
salem (cf.  Judges  i.  2i) ;  but  Jerusalem  was  one  of  the  places  said  to 
have  been  subdued  by  Joshua  (Josh.  x.  iff.,  xii.  lo).  We  read 
that  the  Ephraimites  did  not  drive  the  Canaanites  out  of  Gezer,  but 
that  they  remain  "  to  this  day,''  having  been  reduced  to  taskwork 
(Josh.  xvi.  lo;  cf.  Judges  i.  29) ;  but  we  are  told  that  Horam,  King 
of  Gezer,  came  to  the  help  of  Lachish,  "  and  Joshua  smote  him  and 
his  people  until  he  had  left  him  none  remaining"  (Josh.  x.  33). 
We  learn  that  the  Manassites  could  not  drive  the  inhabitants  from 
the  towns  of  Bethshean,  Ibleam  and  Dor,  but  in  later  years  reduced 
them  to  servitude  (Josh.  xvii.  11-13) ;  while,  according  to  Josh.  xii. 
23,  Dor  had  been  conquered  by  Joshua. 

It  will  appear  from  an  examination  of  these  passages  that  many 
of  the  scattered  statements  in  the  second  part  of  Joshua  are  identi- 
cal with  those  in  Judges  i. 


THE  MODERN  PO/iVT  OF  VIE  IV.  167 

pai^n  these  tribes  took  Jerusalem,  Hebron  and  Debir, 
cities  which  were  said  to  have  been  taken  under  Joshua. 
But  in  verse  21  we  are  told  that  *'  the  Benjamites  coulci 
not  drive  out  the  Jebusites  from  Jerusalem  :  but  the 
Jebusites  dwelt  with  the  Benjamites  in  Jerusalem,  unto 
this  day."  The  story  g-oes  on  to  relate  the  conquest 
of  Bethel  by  the  tribe  of  Joseph  ;  but  most  of  the  other 
tribes  are  said  to  have  been  too  weak  to  take  towns. 
They  secured  a  foothold  in  the  retreats  in  the  moun- 
tains, from  which  they  gradually  advanced  against  the 
Canaanites,  though  ^t'e  are  expressly  told  that  the 
original  inhabitants  were  not  e:?cterminated,  but  reduced 
to  servitude. 

It  appears  clearly,  therefore,  that  there  are  two  sepa- 
rate accounts  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  According 
to  one  (Josh,  i.-x.i.)  Joshua  led  the  combined  forces  to 
victory  after  victory  until  the  possession  was  made 
complete  by  the  capture  of  the  important  cities,  and 
the  extermination  of  the  inhabitants.  According  to 
the  other  (fragments  in  Josh,  xiii.fif,  and  Judges  i.),  the 
conquest  was  effected  by  the  various  tribes  operating 
for  the  most  part  independently  ;  the  struggle  lasted  a 
long  time,  and  in  the  end  the  Canaanites  were  not  ex- 
terminated, but  reduced  to  servitude. 

The  true  history  of  the  conquest  can  be  written  only 
by  a  diligent  study  of  these  two  sources.  That  in 
Judges  is  the  earlier,  but  the  other,  though  later,  must 
ahvays  be  considered.     An  important  characteristic  of 


i68  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

the  later  source  is  the  disregard  of  perspective.  Look- 
ing back  through  a  long  period  of  time,  events  which 
covered  several  generations  are  all  placed  in  the  age 
of  Joshua.  It  is  manifest  that  some  of  the  events  de- 
scribed in  Judges  i.  took  place  before  the  death  of 
Joshua.  In  the  Book  of  Joshua,  as  we  have  seen,  many 
of  these  events  are  connected  with  the  great  leader's 
career. 

But  if  Joshua  did  not  lead  the  forces  of  Israel  through 
a  long,  almost  unbroken  series  of  victories,"^  his  part  in 
the  conquest  was  by  no  means  small.  He  was  a  great 
general,  making  the  most  of  the  opportunity  he  had. 
Doubtless  the  tribes  moved  to  their  tasks  under  his  di- 
rection, and  the  great  tribe  of  Ephraim,  perhaps  at 
times  vvith  others  associated  with  it,  was  led  by  him  in 
the  great  struggle  for  a  central  position  in  the  land. 

Another  passage  in  the  early  history  of  Israel  which 
is  obscure  and  difficult  until  the  sources  are  subjected 
to  a  critical  analysis,  is  the  account  oi  Saul's  accession 
to  the  throne  of  Israel.  As  the  narrative  now  stands, 
there  are  passages  not  easily  brought  into  harmony. 
In  one   case   we   read   that   the  people  ask  for  a  king, 


*  "  Joshua  was  not  the  conqueror  of  Canaan  in  any  exact  sense 
of  the  term.  ...  In  Canaan  itself  the  amount  of  territory  won 
by  Joshua  was  practically  confined  to  the  passage  over  the  Jordan 
and  the  mountainous  region  of  the  centre.  Few  of  the  Canaan- 
itish  cities  were  captured  by  him  "  (Sayce,  "  Early  Hist.,"  p.  248). 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  169 

I 
much  to  the  displeasure  both  of  Samuel  and  of  Jehovah        1 

(I.  Sam.  viii.  4ff.)  ;  in  another,  that  Jehovah  was  gra- 
ciously moved  to  raise  up  a  king  to  deliver  His  people 
from  the  Philistines,  because  He  had  heard  their  cry  of 
distress.     According  to  one  account,  Samuel  tried  to 
dissuade   the   people  from   their  purpose,  while  in  the 
other  he  enters  heartily  into  the  divine  purpose,  and 
aids  Saul  to   secure  the  sovereignty   over  the  people. 
Even  after  Samuel  had  anointed  Saul  by  divine  com-        i 
mandment  (x.  i),  he  accused  the   people  of  rejecting        | 
God  by  their  request  for  a  king  (xii.  12).     In  one  case        \ 
Jehovah  points  out   Saul  to  Samuel  privately  as  the 
destined  king  (ix.  16);  in  the  other  case  he  was  selected        \ 
by  lot  in  a  great  assembly  at  Mizpah  (x.  2off.).     After        ' 
Saul  had  been  thus  publicly  elevated  to  the  throne,        1 
and   had   retired   with  the  army  (x.  26),  we  find   him        ' 
quietly  plowing  in  the  field  (xi.  5). 

If  now  there  had  been  a  king  on  the  throne  of  Israel        j 
the  men  of  Jabesh-Gilead  would  naturally  have  gone 
directly   to    him,  instead  of  sending  through  all   the        I 
borders  of  Israel   for  such  succor  as  they  could  find.        ; 
Even  when  the  message  telling  of  the  straits  of  their        I 
kinsmen  was  known  in  Saul's  city,  no  one  went  to  him; 
he  learned  of  the  situation  by  inquiry.     Saul  does  not 
then  send  out  orders  as  an  accredited  king,  but  sends 
a  threat  as  an  individual.  I 

We  read  further  in   Samuel's  address  to  the  people 
that  an  invasion  of  Nahash  the  king  of  Ammon  was 


I70  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

tbe  occasion  of  the  people's  demand  for  a  king-  (xii.  12), 
whereas  the  king  in  another  place  is  said  to  have  been 
publicl}^  proclaimed  before  this  invasion  (x.  i/ff.).  As 
the  story  stands,  moreover,  Saul  was  first  anointed 
privately,  then  chosen  by  lot  at  Mizpah  and  declared 
to  be  the  king  chosen  of  Jehovah,  and  then  again  at 
Gilgal  "  they  made  Saul  king  before  Jahveh,  with  sacri- 
fices and  great  rejoicings  "  (xi.  I4f.). 

It  must  be  evident  from  these  considerations  that 
this  event,  as  it  now  stands,  is  by  no  means  free  from 
serious  difficulties.  The  faculties  of  the  harmonist  have 
been  tried  at  this  passage  repeatedly,  but  not  with  a 
success  that  has  won  confidence.  The  discovery  that 
there  are  here  two  parallel  accounts,  enables  us  at  all 
events  to  understand  the  course  of  events.  The  older 
account  is  found  in  ix.  i-x.  16  ;  xi.  i-ii,  14,  15  ;  the 
later  version  is  in  viii.,  x.  17-27,  xii.  These  are  each 
preserved  with  considerable  completeness,  as  will  read- 
ily be  seen  by  any  one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to 
read  the  two  groups  of  passages  separately.  The  old- 
est story  of  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy  may 
be  briefly  told. 

Israel  had  long  been  under  the  heel  of  the  dreaded 
Philistines.  As  in  the  tim.e  of  the  Judges,  so  now  their 
distressful  cry  reached  the  ears  of  Jehovah.  Instead  of 
raising  up  now,  as  in  the  past,  a  temporary  deliverer, 
Jehovah  reveals  to  His  prophet  His  purpose  to  raise 
up  a  permanent  king  for  His  suffering  people.     In  the 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  171 

giant  Benjamite,  who  comes  to  ask  the  seer  about  the 
strayed  asses,  Samuel  perceives  the  one  whom  Jehovah 
had  chosen.  After  showing  Saul  high  honor  at  a  pub- 
lic sacrifice,  Samuel  detains  him  for  the  night  at  Ramah, 
doubtless  to  lay  before  him  the  matters  of  which  his 
heart  was  full.  In  the  morning  he  anointed  Saul,  and 
declared  him  to  be  the  king  of  Israel,  giving  him  signs 
to  prove  that  his  choice  was  of  God's  will,  and  parting 
from  him  with  the  injunction  to  do  as  occasion  served 
him — a  veiled  statement  meaning  that  Saul  was  to 
seize  an  opportunity  to  get  possession  of  the  throne. 

A  suitable  occasion  for  the  showing  of  his  hand  soon 
arose.  As  he  came  from  the  field  one  evening  he 
heard  a  wail  in  his  city.  Upon  inquiry,  he  learned  that 
messengers  had  arrived  imploring  aid  for  Jabesh-Gil- 
ead,  a  city  across  the  Jordan,  whose  people  had  agreed 
to  surrender  to  Nahash,  and  allow  him  to  put  out  their 
right  eyes,  unless  they  found  succor  within  seven  days. 
When  he  heard  of  the  plight  of  his  kinsmen  ''  the  Spirit 
of  God  came  mightily  upon  Saul,  and  his  anger  was 
kindled  greatly,"  He  sent  a  message  to  all  the  Israel- 
ites threatening  them  with  punishment  unless  they  ral- 
lied to  the  rescue.  Three  hundred  and  thirty  thousand 
men  quickly  responded  to  his  call.  This  force  marched 
to  Jabesh  in  three  divisions,  and  at  dawn  attacked  the 
besieging  Amm.onites  on  all  sides.  The  besiegers 
were  taken  completely  by  surprise,  and  were  quickly 
put  to  rout. 


172  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

Saul  had  won  the  right  to  be  the  head  of  the  nation, 
Samuel,  who  had  apparently  accompanied  the  host, 
seizes  the  favorable  opportunity,  and  musters  the  peo- 
ple at  the  old  centre  at  Gilgal,  where  Saul  is  crowned 
as  the  king-  of  Israel. 

This  story  is  complete  and  consistent.  The  first 
king  of  Israel  could  scarcely  have  secured  the  throne 
excf;pt  by  such  an  exhibition  of  leadership.  The 
judges  of  an  earlier  age  won  the  right  to  temporary 
rule  by  their  prowess  in  war.  After  Gideon  had  ex- 
pelled the  Midianites  the  crown  was  offered  to  him. 
David  himself  was  finally  received  as  the  king  of  the 
North  because  he  had  been  the  real  deliverer  from 
Philistine  oppression  (II.  Sam.  v.  2).  Saul  won  the 
crovv'n  by  showing  his  ability  to  be  the  head  of  the 
people. 

This  earlier  story  is  probably  the  more  correct  ver- 
sion, though  the  other  may  preserve  some  true  details. 
The  analysis  is  based  very  largely  upon  the  clear  indica- 
tions of  a  double  narrative  ;  but  the  differences  of  style 
arc  very  marked,  and  the  separation  of  the  composite 
structure  very  easy.  It  is  apparent  that  while  the  two 
versions  differ  in  various  details  of  more  or  less  impor- 
tance, they  agree  in  all  that  can  be  regarded  as  funda- 
mental. In  both  the  prophet  Samuel  selects  the  king ; 
Saul  is  the  divine  choice  ;  he  is  gladly  accepted  by  the 
people  because  of  his  great  power  as  a  leader  in  war.* 

*  In  the  earlier  version  this  is  shown  by  his  relief  of  Jabesh ;  in 


THE  MODERiY  POINT  OF  VIEW.  173 

Another  case  of  a  similar  kind  is  found  also  in  I.  Sam- 
uel, the  story  of  David  and  Goliath.  It  must  be  apparent 
to  any  one  who  reads  this  story  that  as  it  now  stands 
it  presents  difficulties  of  a  most  perplexing  kind.  Thus 
when  Samuel  goes  down  to  anoint  a  son  of  Jesse  as 
king  to  take  the  place  of  the  rejected  Saul,  David  is 
said  to  be  the  youngest  son,  and  so  was  left  in  charge 
of  the  sheep,  while  his  older  and  more  stalwart  broth- 
ers went  to  Samuel's  sacrifice.  Further  it  is  said  that 
"he  was  ruddy,  and,  withal,  of  a  beautiful  countenance, 
and  goodly  to  look  upon"  (I.  Sam.  xvi.  iif.).  David 
had  nothing  in  his  outward  appearance  to  commend 
him  as  a  king.  Samuel  expected  to  find  the  right  one 
among  the  older  sons,  but  he  was  admonished  that  the 
decision  was  not  to  be  based  upon  external  appear- 
ances, or  the  height  of  the  stature,  '*for  man  looks 
on  the  outward  appearance,  but  Jahveh  looks  on  the 
heart"  (xvi.  7). 

Directly  afterward  we  read  that  Saul's  counsellors 
advise  the  king  to  secure  a  cunning  player  on  the  harp 
as  a  cure  for  the  king's  mental  aberration,  and  they 
recommend  David  as  "cunning  in  playing,  and  a 
mighty  man  of  valor,  and  a  man  of  war,  and  prudent 
in  speech,  and  a  comely  person"  (xvi.  18).  David  was 
taken  to  Saul's  court,  and  his  military  ability  seems  soon 
to  have   overshadowed  everything  else,  and  he  was  by 

the  later  he  is  said  to  be  "  higher  than  any  of  the  people  from  his 
shoulders  and  upward  "  (x.  23). 


174  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

arrangement  with  Jesse  permanently  attached  to  Saul's 
court  in  the  high  j^osition  of  royal  armor-bearer. 

We  next  hear  of  David  as  a  shepherd  going  to  and 
fro  to  feed  his  father's  flock  at  Bethlehem  (xvii.  15). 
He  is  sent  by  his  father  to  carry  supplies  to  his  three 
brothers  "'  who  were  in  Saul's  army.  His  oldest 
brother  reproves  him  because  he  has  left  the  sheep 
and  come  down,  with  natural  boyish  curiosity,  to 
see  a  battle.  When  David  proposed  to  do  battle 
with  Goliath,  Saul  discourages  him:  "Thou  art  but 
a  youth."  David  admits  this,  but  says  that  during 
his  shepherd  life  he  has  rescued  sheep  from  lions  and 
bears.  Saul  puts  his  armor  upon  David  ;  but  a  shep- 
herd lad  knows  nothing  about  the  use  of  armor,  and 
David  realizes  that  it  will  be  only  an  impediment.  As 
a  matter  of  fact  he  goes  out  against  the  mighty  Philis- 
tine equipped  only  with  his  shepherd's  staff  and  his 
sling.     The  giant  disdained  him  because  *'he  was  only 

*  The  original  form  of  this  narrative  only  knows  of  four  sons  of 
Jesse.  The  three  eldest  are  with  Saul,  and  David,  the  youngest,  is 
the  only  one  left  (xvii.  14);  for  when  he  goes  to  the  scene  of  battle 
he  leaves  the  flocks  with  a  keeper  (xvii.  20).  So  his  brother  asks  in 
surprise,  "  With  whom  hast  thou  left  those  few  sheep  in  the  wilder- 
ness ?  "  (xvii.  28) — a  question  without  occasion,  if  there  were  yet 
four  brothers  at  home.  The  statement,  "  and  he  had  eight  sons  " 
(xvii.  12),  is  a  gloss,  based  on  xvi.  10;  it  is  out  of  place  where  it 
stands,  besides  being  in  disagreement  with  the  narrative  following; 
so  too  is  verse  1 5. 


THE  MODERN"  POINT  OF  VIEW.  175 

a  youth,  and  ruddy,  and,  withal,  of  a  fair  countenance" 
(xvii.  42;  cf.  xvi.  12).  After  the  battle,  Saul  took 
David  and  would  let  him  go  no  more  to  his  own  home, 
"and  Saul  set  him  over  the  men  of  war  "  (xviii.  2,  5). 
David's  fame  as  a  soldier  soon  became  so  great  that  he 
was  praised  more  than  Saul,  and  so  the  demented 
king's  jealousy  was  aroused. 

It  is  evident  that  we  have  two  Davids  in  this  narra- 
tive. One  is  the  ruddy  shepherd  lad,  ignorant  of  war 
and  warlike  implements,  although  with  a  brave  heart 
and  a  deep  religious  spirit.  In  the  other,  David  is  a 
man  of  war  and  a  man  of  proved  valor.  It  is  true  that 
the  ruddy  shepherd  lad  might  become  a  man  of  war  ; 
but  this  is  not  the  order  of  the  narrative.  After  he 
wins  a  position  at  Saul's  court  as  a  man  of  war,  he 
again  is  represented  over  and  over  again  as  the  youth. 
Moreover,  when  called  to  the  court  of  Saul  he  had 
already  achieved  a  wide  reputation  as  a  man  of  war; 
for  his  fame  was  known  among  the  men  of  the  North, 
though  he  belonged  to  a  poor  family  in  an  obscure  vil- 
lage of Judah. 

We  notice  another  serious  stumbling  block  in  the 
story.  Though  David  had  been  attached  to  Saul's 
court  as  minstrel  and  armor-bearer,  later,  when  he 
came  into  the  presence  of  the  king,  it  appears  that  they 
are  entire  strangers  to  each  other  (xvii.  33f.).  Saul 
afterwards  inquired  of  Abner  whose  son  the  youth  was, 
andAbner  did  not  know.     Abner  was   bidden  to    in- 


176    ^  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

quire,  but  does  not  appear  to  have  succeeded,  as  the 
king  only  learns  who  David  was  by  asking  him  upon 
his  return  from  his  victorious  combat  (xvii.  55ff.).  The 
too  easy  harmonistic  devices  will  not  clear  up  this 
difficulty.  Thus  one  may  say  that  Saul  did  not  recog- 
nize David  because  of  his  mental  malady.  But  Abner, 
whose  head  was  all  right,  did  not  know  David  either. 
Besides  this  is  only  one  of  several  discrepancies. 

The  story  contains  abundant  other  evidence  of  its 
composite  character.  In  xvii.  I2ff.  we  have  an  intro- 
duction to  Jesse  and  his  family  which  is  entirely  super- 
fluous after  chapter  xvi.  This  introduction  shows  that 
originally  this  narrative  at  least  did  not  follow  chapter 
xvi. ;  for  Jesse  and  his  sons  are  here  assumed  to  be  entire- 
ly unknown.  The  compiler,  orsome  subsequent  scribe, 
realized  that  there  was  lack  of  harmony  between  the 
statement  that  David  was  attached  to  Saul's  court, 
and  that  he  was  a  shepherd  lad  in  Bethlehem,  and 
adds  a  parenthetic  note  (verse  15)  to  explain  the  dif- 
ficulty. But  it  does  not  after  all  clear  up  the  situation. 
Moreover,  in  xvii.  21,  the  two  armies  are  about  to 
engage  in  a  general  conflict  ;  while  in  xvii.  4,  the 
Philistines  proposed  to  settle  the  matter  by  single 
combat,  a  method  much  in  vogue  among  ancient  peo- 
ples. 

The  Greek  version  throws  welcome  light  upon  this 
matter,  light  which  is  peculiarly  welcome  to  those  who 
are  distrustful  of  internal  evidence.     The  best  MSS,  of 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  177 

the  Septuagint  lack  two   large  sections  of  this    story, 
xvii.  12-31,41,  50;  xvii.  55-xviii.   5. 

This  removes  the  chief  redundancies  and  discrepan- 
cies. The  joining  of  verse  32  with  verse  11  makes  a 
clear  connection.  Goliath  challenges  Israel  to  settle 
the  war  by  single  combat,  and  David,  who  is  with  the 
army  as  an  attache  of  Saul's  court,  promptly  accepts 
the  challenge.  The  questions  about  David's  identity 
are  removed  also.  But  this  text  does  not  remove  the 
chief  difficulty;  for  the  two  Davids  remain. 

The  question  now  demands  consideration    how  we 
are   to    explain    the  shorter   recension  of  the  LXX. 
Did  the  Greek  translators  omit  these  passages  because 
they    saw    the    hopeless    discrepancies }    or  did    the 
Hebrew  text  from  which  they   translated  lack  these        | 
passages  ?     The  translators  of  the  Greek  version  have 
left  no  statement  about    the  principles   which  guided 
them,  and  yet  we  are   not  left  altogether  without  wit-        i 
ness  for  the  answer  to   this  question.     If  on    critical         ' 
grounds  the  translators  attempted  by  the  simple  de-         j 
vice  of  omission    to    harmonize  conflicting   stories,  it         j 
would  be  strange  that  they  had  done  this  only  in  one         i 
case.     As  we  have  already  seen,  there  are  other  cases 
to  which  the  pruning  knife  might  have  been  applied  as 
well  as  here  ;  but  this  is  the  only  case  of  the  kind  found 
in  the  Old  Testament.     It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the         , 
Hebrew  text  used  by  these  translators  also  lacked  the  ' 

passage.    There  is  abundant  evidence  that  the  Hebrew 


1 78  THE  OLD  TES  TA  MEN T  FR OM 

Bible  from  which  the  Greek  version  was  made  differed 
in  many  important  respects  from  that  which  the  Jews 
finally  adopted  as  the  standard.  In  this  case  the  Jews 
adopted  the  larger  recension.  It  is  entirely  possible 
that  additions  were  inserted  in  this  narrative  after  the 
Greek  version  was  made.  It  may  be  well  to  remem- 
ber in  this  connection  that  the  Greek  version  was  that 
used  by  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles. 

But  let  us  now  see  what  light  critical  analysis  has  to 
throw  on  this  passage.  The  Jews  themselves  appear 
to  have  had  two  versions  of  the  story  of  David's  intro- 
duction to  Saul.  In  one  he  came  as  a  minstrel,  and 
won  his  way  rapidly  to  higher  rank  ;  in  the  other  he 
came  by  chance  into  the  army  at  a  lucky  moment,  and 
won  a  place  in  Saul's  court  by  his  slaughter  of  the 
Philistine  giant. 

Now  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the 
Hebrew  records  are  not  in  accord,  even  in  crediting 
David  with  the  victory  over  Goliath.  The  following  pas- 
sages furnish  material  which  may  not  be  disregarded: 

I.  Sam.  XVII.  4,  7.  II.  Sam.  xxi.  19^.  I.  Chron.  xx.  5^. 
And  there  came  out  And  Elhanan  the  And  Elhanan  the 
a  champion  from  the  son  of  Jaare-oregim  son  of  Jair  slew- 
camp  of  the  Philis-  the  Bethlehemite  Lahmi,  the  brother 
tines,  named  Goliath,  slew  Goliath  the  of  Goliath  the  Git- 
of  Gath,  .  .  .  and  Gittite,  the  staff  of  tite,  the  staff  of 
the  sta^  of  his  spear  whose  spear  was  like  whose  spear  was 
was  like  a  weaver's  a  weaver's  beam.  like  a  weaver's 
beam.  beam. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  179 

There  is  good  reason  for  identifying  the  Goliaths  in 
the  first  two  passages.  The  second  story  is  told  in  an 
appendix  to  the  history  of  D.ivid  which  consists  of 
events  scattered  all  through  his  reign.  In  both  cases, 
the  name  is  the  same,  the  city  is  the  same,  and  the  de- 
scription of  the  spear  is  the  same.  The  passage  in 
Chronicles  looks  very  much  like  a  harmonistic  device. 
A  comparison  of  the  two  passages  in  Hebrew  shows 
that  they  are  more  nearly  alike  than  appears  in  Eng- 
lish." 

The  Books  of  Samuel  therefore  leave  the  matter  in 
uncertainty  whether  David  or  Elhanan  slew  Goliath, 
and  between  these  two  statements  it  is  not  easy  to 
choose.  The  records  in  II.  Sam.  xxi.-xxiii.  seem  to 
be  taken  from  old  archives,  while  I  Sam.  xvii.  does  not 
show  the  marks  of  an  early  record.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  are  references  to  David's  victory  over  Goliath  in 
other  parts  of  I.  Samuel  (xix.  5;  xxi.  9). 

*The  Hebrew  reads  as  follows  (the  upper  line  is  from  II.  Sam.): 

in^:n  ;*yi  ^r\yr\  n^i?j  ^ns  ^y:)rh      nx  "I'rp  's^Th"^  y^ 

D^:nx  -n:?03 

The  first  D"'JnN  is  an  error  of  the  text  creeping  in  from  the 
end.  Chronicles  contains  the  correct  name  of  Elhanan's  father, 
Jair ;  the  consonants  are  the  same,  a  single  letter  being  trans- 
posed. Chronicles  has  made  n5<  out  of  T\^1  and  n{«5  out  of  nx. 
Chronicles  may  have  had  some  justification  for  its  error  in  an  ob- 
scure text. 


i8o  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

The  oldest  part  of  this  narrative  is  xvi.  14-23, 
David's  attachment  to  Saul  as  minstrel  and  armor- 
bearer.  The  sequel  to  this  narrative  is  found  in  xviii. 
6fTf.  The  connection  is  obscured  in  the  Hebrew  unless  we 
read  in  xviii.  6,  as  Revised  Version  (margin),  "  When 
David  came  from  the  slaughter  of  the  Philistines."  But 
the  LXX.  probably  has  the  true  text  of  this  verse,  "And 
the  singing  wom.en  came  out  to  meet  David  from  all  the 
cities  of  Israel."  Between  these  two  parts  there  must 
originally  have  been  a  section  describing  David's  cam- 
paign against  the  Philistines,  unless,  indeed,  xviii.  5 
contains  the  necessary  information,  xviii.  5ff.  being 
the  direct  continuation  of  xvi.  14-23. 

The  account  of  Samuel's  anointing  David  belongs  to 
the  later  stratum  of  the  books.  Though  David  is  said 
to  have  been  anointed  as  king  in  the  presence  of  his 
father  and  brothers,  there  is  no  reference  to  this  in  the 
subsequent  history.  Eliab  would  scarcely  have  chided 
David  as  he  did  if  David  had  been  king.  David  refuses 
to  stretch  forth  his  hand  against  Jehovah's  anointed 
(I.  Sam.  xxiv.  6) ;  would  he  have  felt  thus  if  he  had 
been  anointed  to  succeed  Saul  ?  David  in  fact  recog- 
nizes Saul's  right  as  king  everywhere,  and  puts  to  death 
the  lying  messenger  who  brought  the  tidings  of 
slaughter,  because  he  had  stretched  forth  his  hand 
against  Jehovah's  anointed  (II.  Sam.  i.  14). 

The  place  of  xvii.  i-xviii.  5  (or  4)  is  not  so  easy  to  fix. 
I  have  stated  grounds  above  for  doubting  that  this  was 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  i8i 

originally  a  unit,  as  the  combat  in  xvii.  i-ii  is  not  the 
same  as  that  in  verse  19  fif.,"^'  though  it  finds  its  continu- 
ation in  verse  32^.  The  settlement  of  the  place  of  this 
narrative  depends  upon  our  conclusion  as  to  whether 
David  or  Elhanan  was  the  champion  who  slew  Goliath. 
It  is  not  easy  to  explain  either  story  as  a  historical 
error.  We  may,  perhaps,  rest  the  case  with  Kent's 
conclusion  :  "  It  is  by  no  means  impossible  that  in 
some  one  of  the  many  forays  of  the  Philistines  into  Ju- 
dah,  the  youthful  David  slew  the  champion  of  the  Philis- 
tines. The  memory  of  the  act  was  preserved  among 
David's  kinsmen,  the  Judaeans,  until  at  last  it  found  a 
place  in  the  prophetic  history  which  is  our  great  source 
for  the  period.  Certainly  some  such  deed  or  deeds  he 
performed  before  he  gained  the  reputation  of  being  *  a 
mighty  man  of  valor,'  which  he  bore  when  introduced 
to  Saul's  court.  This  subsequent  record  confirms  this 
conclusion. "t 

The  books  of  Samuel  show  their  composite  character 
in  many  other  places.  There  is  one  instance  of  a  some- 
what different  character,  in  which  we  seem  to  have  two 
different  versions  of  the  same  story,  though  the  two 
accounts  are  separated  in  our  present  books.  If  one 
reads  chaps,  xxiv.  and  xxvi.  of  I.  Samuel,  he  is  struck 

*Note  that  verse  19  contains  a  statement  that  is  entirely  super- 
fluous after  verse  2;  in  fact  is  almost  a  verbal  repetition  of  it.  Verse 
24  is  also  a  repetition  of  verse  11. 

t  "  A  History  of  the  Hebrew  People,"  I  ,  105. 


l82  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

with  the  remarkable  similarity  of  the  two  stories.  At 
the  same  time,  the  variations  are  so  numerous  that  it 
may  seem  difficult  to  decide  whether  they  are  two  ac- 
counts of  the  same  event,  or  two  independent  occur- 
rences. The  question  can  only  be  decided  by  taking 
into  consideration,  not  only  the  several  points  of  agree- 
ment and  disagreement,  but  also  the  character  of  these 
points. 

The  argument  or  plot  of  the  event  described  in  chap. 
xxiv.  may  be  thus  stated :  Saul  is  informed  of  David's  hid- 
ing place  in  the  wilderness  of  Judah  ;  he  gathers  three 
thousand  picked  men  and  goes  to  seek  David  and  his 
band.  David  surprises  Saul,  and  has  the  opportunity 
to  kill  him,  and  is  urged  to  permit  his  men  to  take 
Saul's  life  ;  but  he  refuses  on  the  ground  that  he  dare 
not  lift  his  hand  against  Jehovah's  anointed,  and  that 
Jehovah  would  accomplish  Saul's  downfall.  He  takes 
some  of  Saul's  belongings  as  evidence  that  he  had 
spared  the  king's  life  when  it  was  in  his  power,  and 
afterwards,  from  a  safe  point,  calls  to  Saul,  exhibits  the 
proof  of  his  mercy,  appeals  to  Saul  against  the  cal- 
umnies which  have  aroused  the  king's  hostility,  pro- 
fesses the  unworthiness  of  the  object  of  the  king's  pur- 
suit, he  being  but  a  flea.  To  this  Saul  replied  :  "  Is  this 
thy  voice,  my  son  David?"  (xxiv.  i6  ;  cf.  xxvi.  17) 
and  professed  his  regret  at  his  own  folly  and  his 
appreciation  of  David's  magnanimity;  he  further  ex- 
pressed his   conviction   of    David's    future    greatness, 


THE  MODE  RAT  POINT  OF  VIE  IV, 


183 


and  departed  homeward  with  his  forces.     David  and 
his  men  returned  to  their  camp  in  the  hold. 

It  appears  now  that  this  framework  of  the  one 
story  is  equally  good  for  the  other.  Every  detail 
stated  above  is  equally  found  in  the  other  story  in 
chap.  xxvi.  It  must  be  acknowledged,  also,  that  this 
outline  contains  all  the  essential  points  in  the  nar- 
rative. The  important  details  in  which  the  narratives 
are  not  in  agreement  can  be  best  shown  by  reverting 
again  to  the  method  of  parallel  columns. 

Chap.  xxiv.  Chap.  xxvi. 

David,  Saul  was  told,  was  in  The  Ziphites  told   Saul  that 

the  wilderness  of  Engedi.*    Saul  David  was  in  the  hill  of  Hachi- 

went  into  a  cave,  in  the  recesses  lab,  before  the   desert.      David 

of  which   David   and   his    men  sent  spies  from  the  wilderness, 

were  hidden ;   thus  David    dis-  and  learned  that  Saul  had  come 

covered  that  Saul  was  in  pursuit,  in  pursuit  of  him. 

David  came  forward,  and,  with-  David     and     Abishai     went 

out  Saul's  knowledge,  cut  off  the  down  to  the  camp  of   Saul  at 

skirt  of  his  robe.  night ;    the   latter,    by   David's 

David  followed  Saul  out  of  the  direction,  takes  Saul's  spear  and 

cave  and  cried  out  to  him,  show-  the  cruse  of  water,  and  they  re- 

ing  him  the  skirt  of  his  robe.  turn  to  their  camp  unobserved, 

David  took  an  oath  not  to  cut  because  Jehovah  had  sent  a  deep 

off  Saul's  seed  after  him.  sleep  upon   Saul  and  his  host. 

David  goes  to  the  top  of  a  moun- 
tain not  far  from  Saul's  camp 


*  Engedi  and  Hachilah  are  near  each  other  in  the  wilderness 
along  the  western  coast  of  the  Dead  Sea. 


i84  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

and  calls  to  Abner,  reproaching  him  for  his  failure  properly  to 
guard  his  master,  and  showing  the  spear  and  water  cruse.  Saul 
recognizes  David's  voice  and  bids  him  return,  assuring  him  that  he 
will  do  him  no  harm. 

Besides  the  differences  indicated  in  this  bare  outline, 
there  is  the  great  difference  of  phraseology,  which  can 
only  be  fully  appreciated  by  reading  the  chapters 
throughout. 

In  favor  of  the  view  that  these  are  but  different  ver- 
sions of  the  same  event,  there  is  this  further  consider- 
ation. The  second  story  makes  no  reference  whatever 
to  the  first.  This  silence  would  be  very  singular  if 
David  had  twice  had  Saul's  life  within  his  power.  At 
the  beginning  we  should  confidently  have  looked  for 
some  reference  to  a  similar  occurrence  which  had 
happened  previously.  David  would  scarcely  have 
lost  such  a  forceful  argument  in  his  effort  to  show 
his  good  intentions  toward  the  king.  And  at  the 
close  of  the  story  some  reference  to  the  former  event 
would  greatly  have  strengthened  the  position  of 
David. 

But  it  may  be  asked  how  it  is  possible  to  explain  the 
numerous  variations  in  the  two  stories  if  they  are  du- 
plicates. The  answer  is  found  in  a  fact  which  every 
observant  person  knows.  There  is  a  tendency  for 
stories  which  are  handed  from  person  to  person  to  vary 
greatly  in  local  coloring  and  other  details.  Before  the 
David  stories  were  reduced  to  writing,  they  may  have 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF   VIEW,  185 

assumed  such  divergent  forms  that  in  a  case  like  this 
the  compiler  was  led  to  incorporate  both  versions. 

But  little  need  be  said  as  to  the  priority  of  one  or  the 
other  version.  Without  stating^  any  reason,  Driver  holds 
that  chap.  xxvi.  contains  '*  the  more  original  version."* 
But  before  there  can  be  any  final  pronouncement  on 
this  question,  further  attention  needs  to  be  given  to  the 
possible  relation  of  chap,  xxiii.  I9ff.  to  these  two 
stories.  The  details  of  this  latter  passage  are  singu- 
larly like  those  of  chap.  xxvi.  The  same  Ziphites  carry 
information  to  Saul  at  Gibeah  about  David's  hiding 
place,  and  the  same  place  is  mentioned,  namely,  Hach- 
ilah.  In  this  case  Saul  is  drawn  away  from  his  hostile 
purpose  by  news  of  a  Philistine  invasion.  This  story 
fits  in  much  better  with  chap.  xxiv.  than  with  chap, 
xxvi.  After  the  Philistine  invasion  Saul  learned 
that  David  had  sought  a  new  asylum,  and  went  in  pur- 
suit. It  may  be  that  many  of  the  details  of  chap, 
xxvi.  are  the  more  correct.  But,  however  this  may  be, 
the  duplicate  version  gives  us  peculiar  assurance  as  to 
the  main  facts  which  are  contained  in  the  argument 
above. 

These  specimens  are  sufficient  to  show  how  the  stu- 
dent who  attempts  a  thorough  study  of  Hebrew  his- 
tory is  dependent  upon  the  results  of  the  higher  criti- 
cism.    This  science  furnishes  him  with  the  basis  for  all 

*  ''  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  Samuel,"  p.  158. 


1 86  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT. 

his  work.  He  may  not  be  an  expert  critic  himself,  but 
he  cannot  afford  to  disregard  the  results  achieved  by  the 
labors  of  other  competent  scholars  in  this  field.  The 
principles  of  historical  criticism,  which  have  done  so 
much  to  make  the  history  of  other  nations  intelligible, 
must  be  applied  also  to  the  history  of  Israel. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


Biblical  Ibistor^* 

BEFORE  we  can  fully  comprehend  the  facts  of 
Hebrew  history  there  is  another  important 
consideration  which  demands  our  attention. 
In  order  properly  to  understand  any  historical  writ- 
ing it  is  necessary  to  know  the  writer's  point  of  view. 
A  history  which  merely  narrated  facts  would  be  intol- 
erably dry.  Many  school  histories  have  been  a  weari- 
ness to  the  flesh  of  school  children  because  they  con- 
sisted of  but  the  dry  bones  of  history,  dates,  and  other 
like  matter.  The  demand  made  of  the  modern  histor- 
ian is  that  he  shall  not  only  state  the  facts,  but  also 
that  he  shall  place  them  in  their  proper  relations.  In 
other  words,  philosophy  must  be  introduced  into  his- 
torical study.  The  essential  thing  is  not  merely  the 
facts,  but  the  meaning  of  the  facts.  Indeed,  the  ac- 
complished historian  seeks  rather  to  conceal  his  facts 
in  the  interest  of  his  philosophy.  Even  the  daily 
newspaper  responds  in  a  measure  to  this  demand.  The 
news  columns  not  only  state  the  facts,  but  attempt  to 
interpret  their  significance.  The  editorial  columns  are 
simply  philosophical  adjuncts  to  give  a  more  intelligent 


i88  THE  OLD    TESTAMENT  FROM 

and  sober  interpretation  of  the  facts  of  the  news  col- 
umns. 

The  amount  of  interpretation  which  enters  into  a 
historical  writing  varies  greatly,  according  to  circum- 
stances. In  some  cases  we  find  just  enough  interpre- 
tation to  make  the  facts  intelligible  ;  in  others,  inter- 
pretation is  so  predominant  that  facts  are  suppressed, 
or  sometimes  even  invented,  in  the  interest  of  theories* 
A  judicial  temperament  is,  therefore,  an  essential  ele- 
ment for  the  historian.  Above  all,  he  must  be  free 
from  partisan  bias,  so  as  to  include  all  the  facts,  before 
he  attempts  to  make  deductions  from  them. 

The  truth  is,  however,  that  comparatively  few  his- 
torians have  this  perfect  judicial  temperament.  Inev- 
itably the  personal  equation  enters  in  ;  and  allowance 
has  to  be  made  for  this  by  the  careful  reader.  The 
more  this  personal  equation  appears,  the  less  trust- 
worthy the  result  as  a  source  of  historical  facts.  Yet 
one  might  easily  go  too  far  in  discrediting  partisan 
history.  In  courts  of  law  it  is  found  that  the  best  way 
to  get  at  the  actual  facts  is  to  give  both  prosecution 
and  defence  the  widest  liberty  to  present  their  case 
from  their  own  widely  divergent  assumptions. 

A  partisan  history  is  sometimes  the  best  place  to 
learn  the  real  truth;  provided,  of  course,  one  is  able  to 
read  with  sufficient  discernment.  There  are  many  peo- 
ple in  the  North  who  have  no  correct  conception  of 
the  true  motive  of  the  South  in  the  great  Civil  War, 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OE  VIEW,  189 

because  they  have  never  read  what  has  been  written 
from  the  Southern  point  of  view,  and  have  not  dis- 
cerned the  bias  in  the  books  they  have  read.  It  is 
profitable  for  the  Bibh'cal  student  to  read  Prof.  Green's 
books  as  well  as  Prof.  Cheyne's.  We  should  have 
both  sides  of  a  case  before  a  final  conclusion  is  at- 
tempted. One  who  has  read  only  one  history  of  any 
period  is  but  poorly  furnished ;  for  he  may  have  only  a 
one-sided  presentation.  Often,  however,  we  may  have 
enough  independent  knowledge  to  enable  us  to  estimate 
the  true  facts  from  a  single  interpretative  presenta- 
tion. 

This  interpretative  character  of  history  has  come  into 
great  prominence  in  modern  times,  as  a  sound  judicial 
spirit  has  become  more  common  ;  but  this  character  is 
found  in  ancient  history  as  well  as  in  modern.  The 
question  which  concerns  us  now  is  whether  this  char- 
acteristic is  found  in  Biblical  history,  and  how  far  it 
must  be  considered  by  the  student  of  the  Bible.  There 
may  be  difference  of  opinion  as  to  its  extent,  but  there 
can  be  none  as  to  its  existence.  In  fact,  there  are 
many  perplexing  problems  which  virtually  solve  them- 
selves by  the  recognition  of  this  fact.  Some  of  these 
will  be  considered  in  the  present  chapter. 

The  extent  to  which  interpretation  has  entered  into 
the  Biblical  history  varies  greatly  in  different  parts.  In 
some  cases  it  is  very  slight ;  in  others  it  is  so  predom- 
inant that  it  is  diflficult  to  determine  what  the  true  facts 


igo  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

are.  In  some  cases  the  interpretation  is  found  in  the 
introductory  statements;  in  others  it  is  part  of  the  warp 
and  woof  of  the  narrative.  Modern  criticism  has  done 
nothing  which  is  more  helpful  to  a  reasonable  faith 
than  the  making  clear  the  distinction  between  facts 
and  theories  in  Biblical  history. 

The  Book  of  Judges  shows  us  plainly  the  interpreta- 
tive character  of  Biblical  history.  That  book  consists, 
in  the  main,  of  a  collection  of  stories  of  the  heroes  of 
the  age  between  the  death  of  Joshua  and  the  rise  of 
the  monarchy.  But  the  stories  are  told  with  a  religious 
purpose.  That  purpose  is  shown  in  the  general  intro- 
duction in  chap,  ii.,  as  well  as  in  the  special  introduc- 
tions to  the  various  stories.  In  the  former  we  read 
thus  :  '*  The  Israelites  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the 
sight  of  Jahveh,  and  served  the  Baalim:  and  they 
abandoned  Jahveh,  the  God  of  their  fathers;  .  .  .  and 
they  provoked  Jahveh  to  anger;  .  .  .  and  the  anger 
of  Jahveh  was  kindled  against  Israel,  and  he  gave  them 
into  the  hand  of  spoilers,  and  they  spoiled  them;  and 
he  sold  them  into  the  hands  of  their  enemies  round 
about,  so  that  they  were  no  longer  able  to  stand  be- 
fore their  enemies;  .  .  .  and  they  Avere  sore  dis- 
tressed. .  .  .  And  Jahveh  raised  up  judges  and 
they  rescued  them  from  the  hand  of  their  spoilers. 
.  .  .  And  when  Jahveh  raised  them  up  judges,  then 
Jahveh  was  with  the  judge,  and  rescued  them  from 
the  hands  of  their   enemies  all  the  days  of  the  judge; 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  iqi 

for  Jahveh  repented  because  of  their  groaning  by  rea- 
son of  their  oppressors  and  their  troublers.  But  it  came 
to  pass  when  the  judge  was  dead,  that  they  turned 
back  and  dealt  more  corruptly  than  their  fathers. 
.  .  And  the  anger  of  Jahveh  was  kindled  against 
Israel"  (ii.  iiff.). 

One  specimen  of  the  special  introductions  to  the  sev- 
eral narratives  will  suffice  for  all:  "  The  Israelites  again 
did  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  Jahveh  ;  and 
Jahveh  strengthened  Eglon,  the  king  of  Moab,  against 
Israel.  .  .  .  And  he  went  and  smote  Israel. 
.  .  And  the  Israelites  served  Eglon  king  of  Moab 
eighteen  years.  And  the  Israehtes  cried  unto  Jahveh, 
and  Jahveh  raised  them  up  a  deliverer,  Ehud,  the  son 
of  Gera.  .  .  .  And  Moab  was  subdued  that  day 
under  the  hand  of  Israel.  And  the  land  had  rest  eighty 
years  "  (iii.  12-15,  30)- 

These  statements,  which  are  due  to  the  compiler, 
show  the  purpose  of  the  book,  and  they  reveal  its  in- 
terpretative character.  The  bare  facts  are  that  in  the 
early  days,  when  the  tribes  were  struggling  to  main- 
tain themselves  in  their  newly  conquered  land,  their 
possession  was  disputed  at  different  times  by  the  va- 
rious nations  about  them.*  These  nations  invaded  the 
land  while  the  tribes  were  disorganized,  while  they 
were  without  tribal   federation  or  strong  leaders,  and 

*0n  the  character  of  the  age  of  the  Judges,  see  a  chapter  by  the 
writer  in  "  The  Bible  as  Literature."     T.  Y.  Crowell  &  Co.     1896. 


192  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

held  the  tribes  in  oppressive  subjugation  until  a  hero 
arose  who  led  the  people  of  Israel  in  successful  revolt. 

But  these  facts  seemed  to  the  historian  to  require  ex- 
planation. God  had  promised  the  peaceful  possession 
of  the  land  and  the  promise  did  not  seem  to  be  fulfilled. 
Gideon  doubtless  voices  a  common  sentiment  when  he 
said  to  .the  angel  of  Jehovah  :  "  If  Jahveh  be  with  us, 
why,  then,  has  all  this  befallen  us?  and  where  be  all  his 
wondrous  works  which  our  fathers  told  us  of?"  (vi. 
13).^  The  compiler  of  the  book  connects  every  period 
of  oppression  with  a  period  of  apostasy  on  the  part  of 
Israel.  As  soon  as  they  come  to  Jehovah  with  peni- 
tent prayers,  He  raises  up  one  to  succor  them.  The 
period  of  Israel's  fidelity  is  coterminous  with  the  life 
of  the  divinely  sent  hero. 

It  is  implied,  for  example,  in  the  compiler's  state- 
ment f  that  Israel  served  Jehovah  all  the  days  of  Gid- 
eon, that  is,  for  forty  years;  whereas  we  are  told  dis- 
tinctly that  Gideon,  at  the  end  of  his  campaign,  made 
an  ephod  of  the  spoil,  after  which  all  Israel  went  a 
whoring  (viii.  27).    It  is  sufficiently  evident  now  that  the 

*It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  angel  does  not  explain  the  fact 
which  troubled  Gideon  as  the  compiler  does.  His  reply  means  that 
God  will  even  now  show  a  continuation  of  His  mighty  works.  He 
does  not  attribute  Israel's  plight  to  their  sins. 

t  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  soon  as  Gideon  was  dead,  that  the  Is- 
raelites turned  again,  and  went  a  whoring  after  Baalim,  and  made 
Baal-berith  their  God  "  (viii.  33). 


THE  MODERN  POINl^  OF  VIEW.  193 

stories  of  the  heroes  are  one  thing,  and  the  interpreta- 
tion which  is  placed  upon  this  age  is  quite  another 
thing.  The  interpretation  may  be  right.  The  theolog- 
ical explanation  of  the  defeats  and  victories  of  this  age, 
for  such  it  is,  may  be  true;  it  certainly  does  contain  el- 
ements of  profound  truth;  but  the  facts  of  the  history 
do  not  stand  or  fall  with  the  correctness  of  the  com- 
piler's point  of  view.  So  it  would  be  possible  that  the 
theology  might  be  correct,  even  though  the  supposed 
facts  were  the  work  of  the  imagination.  The  doctrine 
in  our  Lord's  parables  does  not  depend  upon  facts  in 
the  narrative.  The  facts  are  freely  invented  to  serve 
as  a  vehicle  for  the  great  truths  conveyed. 

Moreover,  the  question  of  the  correctness  of  the 
facts  and  of  the  interpretation  belong  to  different 
spheres  of  science.  The  determination  of  the  former 
belongs  to  historical  criticism,  that  of  the  latter  to 
dogmatics.  If  the  critic  feels  that  he  has  a  grievance 
against  the  theologian  because  he  judges  his  results 
from  the  point  of  view  of  his  theological  opinions,  the 
theologian  in  turn  may  well  feel  a  grievance  against 
the  critic  because  he  has  attempted  to  solve  theologi- 
cal problems  with  a  purely  critical  apparatus.  The 
question  whether  the  narratives  in  the  Book  of  Judges 
are  historical  or  not  must  be  answered  by  the  expert 
in  historical  criticism;  but  the  question  whether  the  in- 
terpretation  is  sound  or  not  rests  with  the  theologian. 
Historical  criticism  has  scrutinized  and  analyzed  these 


194  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

narratives  most  searchingly,  and  the  verdict  is  that  the 
matter  is  historical.  The  question  as- to  the  interpre- 
tation may  well  be  left  for  the  theologian  to  determine. 

It  may  be  stated  here,  however,  that  the  theology 
by  which  the  compiler  explains  the  varying  fortunes  of 
Israel  is  found  also  in  many  other  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  belongs  to  the  very  difficult  subject  of 
*'  Special  Providence."  All  that  is  contended  for  here 
is  that  a  distinction  must  be  drawn  between  the  histori- 
cal facts  and  the  writer's  interpretation  of  facts,  as  both 
are  found  in  Old  Testament  history,  and  that  they  do 
not  stand  or  fall  together.  It  would  not  be  strange  if  an 
ancient  Hebrew  author  did  not  say  the  last  word  about 
a  deep  subject  of  theology,  although  he  has  laid  his  hand 
on  a  great  truth;  but  his  failure  to  do  that  would  not 
vitiate  the  historic  facts  which  he  uses  to  illustrate  his 
theory. 

A  passage  which  has  caused  the  greatest  perplexity 
to  many  devout  readers  is  that  describing  the  execu- 
tion by  command  of  David  of  seven  descendants  of  the 
house  of  Saul.  The  story  briefly  is  as  follows  :  The 
land  of  Israel  was  visited  by  a  severe  famine,  which 
lasted  for  three  years.  David  inquired  of  Jehovah  the 
cause  of  the  trouble,  and  was  told  that  it  was  a 
punishment  because  Saul  had  put  Gibeonites  to  death 
in  contravention  of  the  oath  of  Joshua."^     David  sum- 

*  Or  perhaps  of  the  people  ;  see  Josh.  ix.  15,  18  ;  II.  Sam.  xxi. 
2,  and  p.  lo/ff. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  195 

moned  the  Gibconites  and  asked  what  atonement 
would  satisfy  them  so  that  they  would  "  bless  the  in- 
heritance of  Jehovah."  They  refused  any  terms  ex- 
cept blood  for  blood.  Seven  '*  sons  of  Saul "  were 
handed  over  to  the  Gibeonites,  *'  and  they  hanged 
them  in  the  mountain  before  Jahveh."  Rizpah,  Saul's 
concubine,  whose  two  sons  were  among  those  exe- 
cuted, stood  guard  over  the  bodies  all  the  long  time 
they  were  hanging  exposed  to  birds  and  beasts  of  prey. 
David  was  so  moved  by  her  devotion  that  he  had  the 
bones  of  those  who  had  been  hung  buried  along  with 
the  bones  of  Saul  and  Jonathan.'^  Then  we  read  that 
"  after  that  God  was  entreated  for  the  land  "  (II.  Sam. 
xxi.  1-14). 

It  appears  from  another  statement  in  the  passage  that 
the  famine  was  broken  by  the  fall  of  rain  at  the  usual 
time  in  the  autumn.     The   narrative  is   by  no  means 

*  The  LXX.  has  several  readings  which  are  different  from  the 
Hebrew.  To  verse  11  it  adds  this  very  obscure  statement:  "And 
they  loosed  them,  and  Dan  the  son  of  Joa  seized  them  from  the 
descendants  of  the  giants."  The  Hebrew^  does  not  say  that  the 
bones  of  those  who  were  hung  were  buried  with  the  bones  of  Saul 
and  Jonathan,  but  the  LXX.  does.  The  Hebrew  and  the  best 
MS.  of  the  LXX.  say  that  the  men  of  Jabesh-Gilead  had  stolen 
the  bones  of  Saul  and  Jonathan  (Cod.  Alex,  says  instead  that  they 
buried  \kit.m).  But  in  L  Sam.  xxxi.  12  we  read  that  the  Jabesh- 
Gileadites  valiantly  recovered  the  bodies  of  Saul  and  his  sons  from 
Bethshan  to  stop  the  shame  of  exposure,  and  burnt  them  in  Jabesh, 
afterwards  burying  their  bones. 


196  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

clear  of  textual  difficulties,  as  has  been  shown  in  the 
critical  note.  But  the  meaning  of  the  story  as  it  now 
stands  is  clear.  God  punished  Israel  because  Saul  had 
slain  the  Gibeonites.  He  was  appeased  by  the  execu- 
tion of  Saul's  sons,  and  sent  the  rain  which  ended  the 
famine. 

It  is  evident  that  there  is  a  good  deal  of  interpreta- 
tion in  this  passage.  The  facts  are  easily  determina- 
ble. There  is  no  doubt  that  there  was  a  famine  ;  that 
Saul  had  put  some  Gibeonites  to  death  ;  that  David 
permitted  the  execution  of  Saul's    sons  ;  that  Rizpah 

kept  her  faithful  watch;  and  that  rain  finally  came  to 

• 
the  relief  of  the  famished  land.  But  whether  the  his- 
torian has  traced  correctly  the  relation  of  cause  and 
effect  in  this  matter  may  be  open  to  very  grave  doubt. 
That  Saul's  execution  of  unoffending  Gibeonites  was  a 
sin  in  the  eyes  of  God,  is  beyond  question.  But  that 
God  sent  a  famine  to  the  people  who  had  been  no  party 
to  the  wrong  as  an  express  punishment  for  this  sin,  and 
still  more  that  He  should  be  appeased  by  the  execu- 
tion of  the  innocent  descendants  of  the  perpetrator  of 
the  wrong,  is  not  easily  reconcilable  with  the  Christian 
conception  of  the  character  of  God.  It  should  be  noted 
that  according  to  the  narrative  the  rain  which  re- 
lieved the  famine  came  six  months  after  the  execution, 
and  that  at  the  usual  wet  season  of  the  autumn. 

It  was  natural,  however,  that  the  Jews  should  have 
interpreted  the  events  as  they  did.     The  act  of  Saul  in 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  197 

putting  to  death  those  who  were  protected  by  the  oath 
of  the  people  was  regarded  as  peculiarly  heinous. 
The  Jews  looked  upon  every  misfortune  as  the  special 
punishment  of  God  for  some  specific  sin.  The  famine 
year  after  year  was  a  fact  which  could  be  explained 
easily  by  their  beliefs.  There  must  be  some  sin  resting 
upon  the  nation.  Saul's  great  crime,  though  com- 
mitted several  years  before,  was  the  most  prominent 
one  in  the  people's  consciousness.  The  principle  of 
blood  revenge,  which  has  always  been  so  prominent 
among  Semitic  peoples,  suggested  the  remedy.  Even 
though  the  rains  were  delayed  for  six  months  after  the 
act  of  atonement,  the  Hebrews  could  not  but  believe 
that  their  course  was  justified  by  the  event. 

This  is  in  accord  with  the  ideas  of  the  time.  If  it  is 
not  in  harmony  with  the  higher  truths  taught  by  the  Lord 
Jesus,  it  is  not  surprising.  The  student  of  the  Biblical 
history  must  discriminate  between  the  facts  and  the  in- 
terpretation. The  facts  are  not  discredited,  even  though 
the  interpretation  of  them  is  imperfect.  It  is  true  that 
many  attempts  have  been  made  to  explain  the  difificulty 
so  as  to  give  greater  value  to  the  interpretative  element ; 
but  they  do  not  afford  relief  to  the  real  trouble.* 

Christian  faith  has  often  been  sorely  perplexed  by 
what  have  been  called  the  moral  difificulties  of  the  Old 
Testament.     Some  of  them   are    indeed    serious  ;    for 

*  A  brief  view  of  these  attempts  may  be  found  in  the  Cambridge 
Bible,  on  II.  Sam.,  p.  234f. 


igS  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

they  compel  us  to  choose  between  a  perfect  record  and 
a  perfect  God.  The  Bible  is  the  product  of  the  labors  of 
inspired  men.  Whatever  view  we  may  hold  of  inspira- 
tion, we  must  recognize  a  human  element.  Man  has  a 
faculty  of  leaving  the  marks  of  his  mortality  upon  every- 
thing he  touches.  The  '*  immortal  works  "  of  man  is  all 
right  as  a  rhetorical  expression,  but  it  does  not  express 
a  literal  truth.  But  in  God  we  must  assume  infallibility 
in  character  as  well  as  in  knowledge.  The  Christian 
conception  of  God  leaves  no  room  for  the  slightest  im- 
perfection. The  Christian  runs  no  risk  in  unhesitatingly 
rejecting  anything  which  militates  against  his  idea  of 
God.  He  does  not  have  to  worship  the  sacred  Book  ; 
but  he  must  worship  God,  and  the  more  he  recognizes 
his  own  frailty,  the  more  insistent  he  is  that  the  Being 
to  whom  he  bows  down  must  be  without  blemish. 

There  are  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  that  are 
scarcely  consistent  with  this  idea  of  God.  We  find 
one  in  the  history  of  Moses.  **  And  the  Israelites  did 
according  to  the  word  of  Moses ;  and  they  asked  from 
the  Egyptians  jewels  of  silver,  and  jewels  of  gold,  and 
clothing.  And  Jahveh  placed  the  favor  of  the  people 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Egyptians,  so  that  they  complied 
with  their  request ;  and  they  spoiled  the  Egyptians  " 
(Ex.  xii.  35f).     If  this  spoiling^  of  the  Egyptians  were 

*  This  spoiling  or  plundering  shows  how  impossible  is  the 
apologetic  explanation  that  the  Hebrews  demanded  and  received 
the  jewelry  and  clothing  as  due  in  lieu  of  wages. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  199 

the  work  of  Moses  alone,  it  would  not  be  a  serious 
matter  ;  but  we  must  look  a  little  further.  In  Ex. 
iii.  2 if.  we  read  :  "  And  I  will  place  the  favor  of  this 
people  in  the  eyes  of  the  Egyptians;  and  it  shall  be 
when  you  go  out  you  shall  not  go  put  empty  ;  but 
each  one  shall  ask  of  her  friend  and  of  the  visitor  in 
her  house  jewels  of  silver,  and  jewels  of  gold,  and  cloth- 
ing, and  you  shall  put  them  upon  your  sons  and  upon 
your  daughters,  and  you  shall  spoil  the  Egyptians." 
In  xi.  if.  we  find  this  similar  statement :  "  And  Jahveh 
spoke  to  Moses.  .  .  .  Speak  now  in  the  ears  of  the 
people,  that  they  ask  each  man  of  his  neighbor,  and 
each  woman  of  her  neighbor,  jewels  of  silver,  and 
jewels  of  gold." 

It  appears  therefore  that  Moses  was  acting,  accord- 
ing to  this  narrative,  by  the  command  of  God.  Is  this 
a  fact,  or  the  interpretation  of  a  fact  ?  If  the  former, 
then  on  one  occasion  God  directed  His  servant  to  vio- 
late the  eighth  commandment ;  if  the  latter  is  the  true 
explanation,  we  have  only  to  perceive  that  the  writer 
supposed  every  act  of  the  man  of  God  was  by  express 
commandment  of  God. 

A  similar  case  is  found  in  the  history  of  Samuel, 
though  in  one  of  the  later  sources  of  that  history  : 
*'  And  Jahveh  said  to  Samuel,  How  long  wilt  thou 
grieve  about  Saul,  when  I  have  rejected  him  from  ruling 
over  Israel?  Fill  thy  horn  with  oil,  and  come,  I  will 
send  thee  to  Jesse  the  Bethlehemite  ;  for  I  have  seen 


200  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

among  his  sons  a  king  for  me.  And  Samuel  said,  How 
can  I  go  ?  Saul  will  hear  of  it,  and  put  me  to  death. 
And  Jahveh  said,  Take  a  young  calf  with  thee  and  say, 
I  have  come  to  sacrifice  to  Jahveh  "  (I.  Sam.  xvi.  iff.). 
Did  Jehovah  actually  direct  Samuel  to  accomplish  by 
a  subterfuge  what  he  dare  not  do  openly  }  Or  is  this, 
too,  an  interpretation  of  Samuel's  course  due  to  the 
writer  ?  I  have  heard  the  incident  justified  by  saying 
that  our  Lord,  too,  dissembled.  Such  an  explanation 
is  intolerable.  We  might  be  forced  to  believe  that 
even  an  inspired  writer  had  interpreted  wrongly  ;  we 
cannot  be  forced  to  believe  that  God  has  acted 
wrongly. 

Another  example  of  the  relief  which  a  recognition  of 
the  interpretative  character  of  Hebrew  history  offers 
may  be  found  in  connection  with  the  campaign  against 
Ai  already  referred  to.  The  first  attack  on  this  city 
by  a  small  force  was  unsuccessful.  The  cause  of  the 
disaster  was  found  in  the  sin  of  Achan,  who  had  pur- 
loined some  of  the  booty  which  had  been  put  under 
the  ban.  After  the  sin  was  detected  and  the  criminal 
put  to  death,  another  attack  was  made,  and  this  second 
assault  was  successful.  There  is  a  double  thread  of  in- 
terpretation in  the  narrative,  due  probably  to  its  com- 
posite character.  We  have,  in  fact,  two  explanations 
of  the  defeat.  We  are  told  that  for  the  first  assault  but 
three   thousand  men  (Josh.  vii.  4)  were  sent,  and  they 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  201 

were  easily  repulsed.  On  the  second  assault  thirty 
thousand^  men  were  placed  in  ambush,  while  Joshua 
led  the  rest  of  the  army  in  a  direct  attack.  Then, 
again,  we  are  told  that  the  first  repulsj  was  due  to  the 
sin  of  Achan. 

It  is  easy  here,  as  elsewhere,  to  separate  the  actual 
historic  facts  from  the  interpretation,  and  to  judge  each 
by  itself.  The  historic  facts  are  not  to  be  mixed  up 
with  the  theology  of  the  narrator.  The  two  explana- 
tions of  the  failure  to  take  the  city  at  the  first  attempt 
show  the  difference  between  looking  at  the  matter 
from  the  military  and  from  the  religious  point  of  view. 

The  theological  explanation  of  the  writer  is  not  free 
from  difificulties  for  the  earnest  student.  It  was  cer- 
tainly a  severe  penalty  for  the  sin  of  a  single  individual, 
who  was  not  representative,  that  the  whole  people 
should  suffer  a  serious  defeat,  involving  doubtless  the 
lives  of  many  brave  Israelites.  The  fact  that  Achan 
was  the  only  offender  bears  strong  testimony  to  the 
righteousness  of  the  people  as  a  whole.     Booty  was  a 

*  According  to  Josh.  viii.  3f.,  thirty  thousand  men  were  placed  in 
ambush  behind  the  city,  while,  according  to  verse  12,  five  thousand 
men  were  sent  to  the  ambush.  Verse  1 3  clears  up  the  discrepancy  by 
explaining  that  there  were  two  ambushes,  contrary  to  the  rest  of  the 
narrative.  The  LXX.  lacks  verse  13  entirely,  and  all  of  verse  12 
except  the  words,  *'  and  the  ambush  of  the  city  was  on  the  west," 
and  so  is  consistent.  Verse  13  may  be  explained  as  the  compiler's 
reconciliation  of  the  discrepant  numbers. 


202  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

chief  object  in  war.  Joshua's  strict  command  that  no 
plunder  be  taken,  even  supported  by  the  religious  sanc- 
tion of  the  ban,  was  not  easy  to  carry  out  ;  for  it  would 
seem  very  foolish  to  the  conquerors  to  destroy  so  much 
stuff  which  would  be  useful  to  a  poorly  equipped  peo- 
ple. Nevertheless,  God  may  punish  innocent  nations 
for  the  sin  of  guilty  individuals.  The  social  fabric  is  a 
unity  in  some  sense,  and  when  one  member  sins  all 
parts  are  affected  more  or  less. 

But  God's  punishments  are  not  usually  of  an  arbi- 
trary character.  God  lets  His  people  bear  the  natural 
consequences  of  their  sins  ;  as  St.  Paul  so  happily  ex- 
pressed it,  *'  whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  shall  he 
also  reap  "  (Gal.  vi.  7).  But  the  serious  question  is  one 
that  belongs  to  theology,  and  may  be  left  with  theo- 
logians. The  higher  criticism,  however,  must  not  be 
charged  with  the  responsibility  for  its  determination, 
as  it  is  a  question  with  which  this  science  has  nothing 
whatever  to  do. 

Such  interpretations  have  little  value  for  the  student 
of  history  ;  but  they  have  a  very  great  value  for  the  stu- 
dent of  the  history  of  theology.  If  the  bare  facts  had 
been  told,  if  we  had  only  the  military  explanation  of  the 
defeat  at  Ai,  we  should  never  be  able  to  determine  the 
religious  point  of  view  of  the  Hebrew  historian.  As  it 
is,  we  know  from  such  narratives  as  the  above,  not  only 
the  Hebrew  conception  of  God's  providence  in  history, 
but  also  the  intense  religious  spirit  of  the  Hebrew  peo- 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W.  203 

pie.  There  were  no  phenomena,  even  in  the  material  for- 
tunes of  these  people,  which  did  not  seem  to  have  their 
direct  causes  in  God.  If  they  were  right  in  their  funda- 
mental proposition,  they  may  easily  be  excused  for  mis- 
taking sometimes  the  direct  causes  of  their  misfortunes. 
The  true  cause  of  the  failure  at  Ai  is  clearly  enough  in- 
dicated in  the  sacred  story.  The  over-confidence  of 
the  people,  resulting  from  the  easy  conquest  of  Jer- 
icho, as  already  stated,  led  the  Hebrews  to  exaggerate 
their  own  powers,  and  to  underestimate  the  strength 
of  the  enemy.  This  was  the  sin  which  God  punished 
with  its  natural  and  so  corrective  penalty. 

In  cases  like  those  just  discussed,  the  interpretative 
element,  though  troublesome  enough  to  the  thoughtful 
reader,  is,  nevertheless,  a  comparatively  small  matter, 
and  the  true  historical  narrative  is  easily  separated 
from  it.  There  are  other  cases  in  which  the  interpre- 
tation occupies  so  prominent  a  place  that  it  in  fact 
constitutes  the  raison  iVelre  of  the  writing.  This  is 
notably  the  case  with  the  Book  of  Chronicles,  and 
therefore  that  book  constitutes  a  very  serious  problem 
to  the  devout  student  who  desires  to  know  the  facts. 
It  is  true  that  many  do  not  find  any  trouble  with  this 
book ;  but  the  reason  is  not  that  the  troublesome 
problems  are  not  there,  but  that  they  have  never  made 
a  thorough  study  of  the  book.  To  know  just  what  the 
Book  of  Chronicles  is,  it  must  be  studied  comparatively. 
It  is  a  version  of  the  history  of  Israel  from  Adam  to 


204  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

the  Restoration.  It  is  therefore  parallel  to  the  histor- 
ical portions  of  the  books  from  Genesis  to  Kings  inclu- 
sive. It  deals  with  the  same  events,  but  in  a  vastly 
different  way.  It  is  significant  by  its  omissions,  its 
additions,  and  its  parallels.  No  extensive  treatment 
of  the  book  will  be  attempted  here ;  but  some  of 
its  phenomena  will  be  presented  under  each  of 
these  three  divisions.  The  peculiar  material  of  the 
book  and  its  peculiar  character  will  thus  be  clearly 
seen."^ 

One  important  fact  should  first  be  noted.  The 
place  of  Chronicles  in  the  Hebrew  canon  is  very  differ- 
ent from  that  in  the  English  canon.  In  the  latter  it 
is  placed  after  Kings,  at  the  end  of  the  section  of  his- 
torical books,  and  before  the  poetical  books  and  the 
prophets  ;  in  the  Hebrew  canon  it  is  the  very  last  book 
of  all.  This  has  a  meaning.  The  book  was  one  of  the 
latest  to  obtain  canonical  recognition.  There  is  abun- 
dant evidence  that  its  composition  was  late.  It  could 
not  possibly  be  earlier  than  400  B  C,  and  was  probably 
a  century  later.  Its  tardiness  in  finding  a  place  in  the 
Hebrew  canon  can  only  be  satisfactorily  attributed  to  its 

*  A  convenient  source  for  the  comparative  study  of  Chronicles  is 
found  in  "The  Hebrew  Monarchy,"  by  Andrew  Wood,  M.A.  (Lon- 
don, 1896).  The  notes  are,  however,  of  minor  value.  The  prob- 
lems of  the  Book  of  Chronicles  are  ably  discussed  in  "  Inspiration 
and  Inerrancy,"  by  H.  P.  Smith.  A  useful  synopsis  will  be  found  in 
Driver's  "Introduction,"  p.  Sipff. 


.  THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  205 

peculiar  character,  that  is,  to  its  marked  divergence 
from  the  earlier  history  in  Genesis  to  Kings. 

I.  Omissions.  The  first  section  of  the  book  (i.  i-ix. 
34)  consists,  for  the  most  part,  of  genealogical  matter. 
These  tables  are  based  mainly  on  the  genealogical 
material  in  the  earlier  books.* 

The  history  proper  begins  with  I.  Chron.  x.  We  find  no 
account  of  the  establishment  of  the  monarch}-,  though 
the  genealogy  of  Saul's  house  is  twice  given  (ix.  35ff.; 
viii.  29ff.).  Chronicles  lacks  the  history  of  David's  crown- 
ing in  Hebron,  and  the  steps  by  which  the  kingdom  of 
the  house  of  Saul  was  overthrown;  it  states  that  Saul 
and  all  his  house  were  slain  in  the  battle  of  Gilboa,  and 
so  the  whole  kingdom  was  at  oncef  turned  over  to 
David  (x.  I3f.).  As  the  Chronicler's  assumption  is  that 
the  house  of  Saul  was  extinct,  all  reference  to  David's 
dealings  with  Mephibosheth,  or  Meribaal,  is  omitted. 
The  infliction  of  childlessness  on  David's  wife,  Michal, 
is  omitted ;  David's  cruelty  to  the  Moabites,  his  sin 
with  Bathsheba  and  all  the  events  connected  with  it 

■•■  There  are  many  significant  omissions  in  this  part.  The  tribe 
of  Judah  occupies  a  foremost  place ;  in  giving  the  families  of  other 
tribes,  the  tribe  of  Levi  takes  the  most  prominent  place.  But  these 
need  not  be  considered  here. 

t  In  spite  of  this  we  find  in  I.  Chron.  xxix.  27  an  excerpt  from 
I.  Kings  ii.  11,  stating  that  David  reigned  seven  years  in  Hebron 
and  thirty-three  years  in  Jerusalem  ;  but  this  passage  implies  that 
in  Hebron  he  ruled  over  all  Israel.  The  fuller  details  are  given 
in  II.  Sam.  v.  4f. 


2o6  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

are  lacking.  So,  also,  are  the  rebellion  of  Absalom 
and  all  the  circumstances  leading  up  to  it,  Amnon's  in- 
cest, his  murder,  the  exile  of  Absalom  ;  so,  also,  is  the 
minor  rebellion  of  Sheba,  and  the  more  important  one 
of  Adonijah.  There  is  no  mention  of  the  execution  of 
Saul's  sons  to  appease  the  Gibeonites;  of  David's  narrow 
escape  from  death  at  the  hands  of  a  Philistine  giant 
(II.  Sam.  xxi.  1 5-17);  of  the  vengeance  upon  his  personal 
enemies  which  he  bequeathed  to  Solomon;  and  of  the 
infirmity  of  his  old  age  which  led  to  the  introduction  of 
Abishag  to  the  court. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  David  of  Chronicles 
is  quite  different  from  the  David  of  Samuel.  Nearly 
everything  is  omitted  which  is  derogatory  to  David's 
character  or  to  the  glory  of  his  reign.  So  one  reading 
the  history  of  David  from  Chronicles  only  will  have  no 
difificulty  about  reconciling  the  king  after  God's  own 
heart  with  the  facts  of  this  king's  life. 

In  the  history  of  Solomon's  reign  we  find  a  number  of 
omissions.  The  story  of  his  marriage  with  the  Egyp- 
tian princess  is  lacking,  though  there  is  allusion  to  her 
as  the  king's  wife  (II.  Chron.  viii.  11);  Chronicles  is 
generally  silent  about  his  polygamy  and  idolatry. 
There  is  no  record  of  his  wisdom  in  judgment,  as 
shown  in  the  case  of  the  two  women  claiming  the 
same  child.  Chronicles  lacks  also  the  long  account  of 
the  organization  of  the  kingdom  and  the  king's  wise 
sayings  (I.  Kings  iv.)  ;  also  the  account  of  the  con- 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W.  207 

struction  of  his  palace  and  other  buildings.  Chronicles 
contains  no  record  of  the  anger  of  God  at  Solomon, 
His  declaration  that  He  would  rend  the  kingdom  from 
the  hands  of  his  son,  and  the  series  of  revolts  by  which 
the  empire  was  stripped  of  much  of  the  territory  which 
David  had  acquired  by  conquest  (ib.^  xi.  9-40). 

In  the  history  of  the  period  following  the  reign  of 
Solomon  we  come  to  the  most  striking  omissions. 
Chronicles  contains  no  history  of  the  northern  king- 
dom, except  in  those  cases  where  it  is  indissolubly  bound 
up  with  the  history  of  Judah,  such  as  Jehoshaphat's 
joining  Ahab  in  the  campaign  against  Ramoth.  For 
his  part  in  this  affair,  however,  he  was,  according  to  the 
Chronicler,  sharply  rebuked  by  Jehu  the  seer  (H.  Chron. 
xix.  2).  As  a  consequence  of  this  principle  of  ignoring 
the  kingdom  of  Israel,  we  find  nothing  in  Chronicles  of 
the  stories  of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  which  occupy  so  large 
a  place  in  the  book  of  Kings.  Elisha  is  not  mentioned 
at  all,  and  Elijah  only  once  [ib.,  xxi.  12),  where  it  is  said 
that  Elijah  sent  a  letter  to  Jehoram  the  king,  teUing 
him  that,  because  of  his  departing  from  the  ways  of 
Jehoshaphat  his  father,  a  great  plague  would  fall  on 
him  and  on  his  people. 

In  the  history  of  Judah  there  are  some  minor  omis- 
sions, and  some  of  important  matters.  There  is  no 
mention  of  the  altar  which  Ahaz  had  made  at  Jerusa- 
lem after  a  pattern  he  saw  at  Damascus  (II.  Kings  xvi. 
lOff.j;  nor  is  there  any  account  of  Hezekiah's  sickness, 


2o8  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

and  the  consequent  visit  of  the  embassy  from  Mero- 
dach-Baladan,  the  king  of  Babylon,  except  the  barest 
mention  (II.  xxxii.  24,  31). 

The  purpose  of  the  Chronicler  may  be  clearly  seen 
from  these  facts.  He  had  no  concern  with  the  king- 
dom of  Israel,  because  in  the  post-exilic  period  it  was 
not  existent,  and  the  present  and  future  of  his  people 
centred  in  Judah  alone.  The  Chronicler  desires  to 
make  the  history  of  Judah  appear  to  the  best  advan- 
tage, so  that  a  veil  is  drawn  over  some  of  the  worst 
vices  of  the  great  heroes. 

2.  Additions.  These  are  very  numerous  and  very 
considerable  in  extent  ;  and  they  deal  with  subjects  of 
several  kinds.  Only  a  partial  list  of  additions  can  be 
given  here.  Enough  will  be  given,  however,  to  show 
that  there  is  much  original  matter  in  Chronicles,  and 
to  indicate  the  character  of  that  material.  Chronicles 
gives  a  religious  reason  for  Saul's  death*  (I.  x.  isf.);  it 
contains  a  long  list  of  warriors  who  are  said  to  have 
joined  David  at  Ziklag,  and  of  those  said  to  have  joined 
him  at  Hebron  to  turn  over  to  him  the  kingdom  of 
Saul  (I.  xii.);  we  find  there  also  a  list  of  Levites,  some 
nine  hundred  in  all,  whom  David  gathered  to  carry  the 
ark  to  Jerusalem  ;  an  account  of  the  ceremony  and  a 
Psalm  which  was  sung  on  the  occasion  (I.  xv.,  xvi.). 
There  is  one  large  section  in   I.  Chronicles  which  has 

*His  failing  to  keep  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  his  consulting  a 
woman  with  a  familiar  spirit. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  209 

no  parallel  in  Samuel,  viz.,  chaps,  xxii.-xxix.  There 
we  find  David's  preparations  for  the  building  of  the  tem- 
ple, the  charge  to  Solomon,  the  duties  of  the  Levites, 
who  are  said  to  have  numbered  thirty-eight  thousand, 
the  courses  of  the  priests,  the  singers,  the  gate-keepers, 
the  temple  treasurers,  the  divisions  of  the  army,  the 
princes  of  the  tribes  (except  those  of  Gad  and  Reuben); 
David's  ministers,  his  last  message  to  the  princes,  officers, 
ct  al.y  a  list  of  offerings  for  the  temple  made  by  David 
and  by  his  officers  ;  his  prayer  before  all  the  people, 
and  the  crowning  of  Solomon  as  king. 

In  11.  Chronicles  the  additions  are  less  numerous, 
and  usually  consist  of  but  short  passages.  There  is 
a  list  of  the  cities  which  Rehoboam  built  to  strengthen 
his  kingdom  ;  an  account  of  the  immigration  of  the 
Levites  and  others  who  were  led  to  Judah  on  c^ccount 
of  the  temple;  of  Rehoboam's  family,  and  of  his  de- 
cline (xi.  5-23).  The  Chronicler  tells  us  how  the  king 
and  princes  humbled  themselves  when  Shishak  the 
king  of  Egypt  invaded  the  land,  and  gives  the  prom- 
ise of  deliverance  (xii.  2ff.).  There  is  an  account  of 
a  battle  between  Abijah  of  Judah  with  400,000  chosen 
men,  and  Jeroboam  of  Israel  with  800,000  men  ;  Abi- 
jah addresses  the  Israelites,  denouncing  their  rebellion, 
and  appeals  to  them  not  to  fight  against  Jehovah,  the 
God  of  their  fathers.  Jeroboam  had  placed  a 
part  of  his  army  in  Abijah  s  rear,  and  began  to  attack 
him  ;    but   God   smote   Jeroboam,   and   the   people  of 


2 1  o  THE  OLD   TES  TA  MEN  T  FR  OM 

Israel  fled,  Abijah  and  his  men  pursuing  until  they  had 
slain  300,000  men  of  Israel  (xiii.). 

In  the  reign  of  the  good  king  Asa  the  Chronicler 
places  an  otherwise  unknown  battle  with  the  Ethio- 
pians. Asa,  with  300,000  Judeans  and  280,000  Ben- 
jamites,  all  mighty  men  of  valor,  met  Zerah  with  1,000,- 
000  Ethiopians  and  300  chariots  ;  again  Jehovah  struck 
a  decisive  blov/  in  aid  of  Judah  so  that  the  Ethiopian 
force  was  annihilated.  There  follows  a  message  of  a 
prophet  who  is  called  Azariah  the  son  of  Oded  [also 
Oded  alone],  commending  the  king  for  his  fidelity  to 
Jehovah,  and  assuring  him  of  success  if  he  continued 
in  the  right  way  (xv.  1-8).  Then  Asa  assembled 
the  people  of  his  kingdom,  with  many  refugees  from 
the  north,  renewed  the  altar  of  Jehovah,  and  offered 
in  sacrifice  700  oxen  and  7,000  sheep,  entering  into 
a  covenant  to  put  to  death  those  who  did  not  serve 
Jehovah  (xiv.  6-xv.  15).  The  Chronicler  relates  that 
Hanani  the  seer  rebuked  Asa  for  making  an  alliance 
with  Syria  against  Baasha,  king  of  Israel  ;  that  Asa 
in  anger  put  the  seer  in  prison  and  "  oppressed  some 
of  the  people"  (xvi.  7-10). 

There  are  some  notable  additions  to  the  history  of 
Jehoshaphat,  especially  of  such  matters  as  tended  to 
magnify  his  greatness.  We  are  told  that  his  army  num- 
bered 1,160,000  men  under  four  commanders  (xvii.); 
that  his  land  was  invaded  by  a  great  host  which  was 
destroyed  by  Jehovah  in  answer  to  the  king's  fervent 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  211 

prayer  (xx,).  There  is  also  an  account  of  Jehosha- 
phat's  legal  reforms,  his  institution  of  teachers  and 
judges  under  the  general  direction  of  Amariah  the 
chief  priest  (xvii.,  xix.). 

In  Chronicles  alone  we  find  an  account  of  the  apos- 
tasy of  Judah  after  the  death  of  the  priest  Jehoiada ; 
the  prophecy  of  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  that  Je- 
hovah had  forsaken  the  wicked  people ;  the  stoning 
of  this  prophet  by  the  command  of  king  Joash  (xxiv. 
15-22).  We  find  also  a  notice  of  Amaziah's  hiring 
100,000  mercenaries  from  Israel  for  a  hundred  talents 
of  silver,  who  were  sent  back,  however,  by  the  urgent 
counsel  of  a  man  of  God  (xxv.  5-10).  There  is  an  ac- 
count of  the  victories  of  Uzziah,  by  which  the  kingdom 
was  greatly  strengthened,  and  also  of  the  great  mili- 
tary preparations  inaugurated  in  his  reign.  There  we 
have  the  memorable  account  of  Uzziah's  conflict  with 
the  priests.  The  king  went  into  the  temple  to  burn 
incense.  The  eighty  priests  under  Azariah  withstood 
him,  declaring  that  priests  alone  were  competent  to 
burn  incense,  and  ordering  the  king  out  of  the  sanctuary. 
The  king  was  very  angry,  but  was  helpless,  because  Je- 
hovah had  smitten  him  with  leprosy  (xxvi.  5-20).  In 
the  history  of  Manasseh's  reign  there  is  an  important 
addition.  According  to  the  Chronicler,  Manasseh  was 
carried  in  chains  to  Babylon.  The  king  cried  to  Je- 
hovah, and  he  was  delivered  and  restored  to  his  king- 
dom.    Then  he  strengthened   the  fortifications  of  Je- 


212  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

rusalem,  and  suppressed  the  idolatrous  worship  which 
had  been  the  cause  of  his  ruin  (xxxiii.  Tiff.)- 

In  these  additions  we  notice  the  tendency  to  magnify 
the  kingdom  of  Judah,  the  prominence  of  the  priests 
and  Levites,  the  frequency  with  which  prophets  are 
introduced  to  commend  kings  when  they  are  faithful  to 
Jehovah,  and  to  condem.n  them  when  they  are  apos- 
tate. The  victories  of  Judah  are  due  to  the  power  of 
Jehovah,  and  are  given  as  an  answer  to  the  kings' 
prayers.  We  note,  also,  the  extraordinarily  large 
numbers  of  the  men  of  war  in  these  additions. 

3.  Parallel  Passages.  It  is  not  easy  to  give  in  a  short 
space  an  adequate  idea  of  the  difference  of  treatment 
between  Chronicles  and  the  earlier  history  upon  which 
it  is  in  part  based.  Many  sections  of  the  earlier  history 
are  incorporated  bodily  into  Chronicles;  but  it  is  not 
often  that  we  find  a  verbatim  agreement.  Many  of  the 
minor  differences  may  be  due  to  textual  corruption;  but 
many  are  certainly  intentional.  As  we  follow  the  par- 
allel passages  we  find  that  the  Chronicler  frequently 
makes  small  omissions  and  additions,  besides  stating 
things  differently  from  the  earlier  historians. 

The  Book  of  Kings  gives  invariably  as  its  sources 
of  information  two  records  :  "  The  chronicles  of  the 
Kmgs  of  Israel,"  always  quoted  for  the  history  of  Is- 
rael, and  "the  chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah," 
always  quoted  for  the  history  of  Judah. "^ 

*The  only  exception  that  I  have  noted  is  I.  Kings  xi.  41,  where 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  213 

In  Chronicles  the  sources  are  never  distinguished  in 
this  way.  Once  there  is  *'  the  commentary  [or  midrash] 
of  the  book  of  the  Kings  "  (II.  xxiv.  27;  cf.  II.  Kings 
xii.  19);  most  frequently  the  source  is  called  "  the 
book  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  and  Israel,"  or  **  Israel  and 
Judah,"  e.g.^  II.  xvi.  11  ;  xxv.  26;  xxvii.  7.  Then 
we  have  several  sources  not  mentioned  elsewhere,  the 
parallel  to  which  in  Kings  is  the  books  named  above. 
I.  Chron.  xxix.  29,  "  The  acts  of  David  the  king  .  .  . 
are  written  in  the  history  (literally  '  words ')  of  Sam- 
uel the  seer,  and  in  the  history  of  Nathan  the  prophet, 
and  in  the  history  of  Gad  the  seer."  II.  Chron.  ix. 
29,  ''The  acts  of  Solomon  .  .  .  are  they  not  writ- 
ten in  the  history  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in  the 
prophecy  of  Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  and  in  the  visions  of 
Iddo  the  seer?"  (cf.  I.  Kings  xi.  41).  /<^.,  xii.  15,  ''The 
acts  of  Rehoboam  .  .  .  are  they  not  written  in  the 
histories  of  Shemaiah  the  prophet,  and  of  Iddo  the  seer, 
after  the  manner  of  the  genealogies."  xiii.  22,  "  The 
acts  of  Abijah  .  .  .  are  written  in  the  commen- 
tary of  the  prophet  Iddo."  xx.  34,  ''The  acts  of  Jehosha- 
phat  .  .  .  are  written  in  the  history  of  Jehu  the  son 
of  Hanani,  who  is  mentioned  in  the  book  of  the  Kings 
of  Israel."  xxvi.  22,  "  The  acts  of  Uzziah  .  .  .  did 
Isaiah  the  prophet,  the  son  of  Amoz,  write."  xxxii. 
32,  "  The  acts   of  Hezekiah     .     .    .    are  written  in  the 

the  unwritten  part  of  Solomon's  history  is  said  to  be  contained  in 
"  the  book  of  the  acts  of  Solomon  ";  cf.  II.  Chron.  ix.  29. 


214  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

vision  of  Isaiah  the  prophet,  the  son  of  Amoz,  in  the 
book  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  and  Israel."  lb.,  xxxiii.  i8f., 
'*  The  acts  of  Manasseh  and  his  prayer  unto  his  God 
.  .  .  are  written  among  the  acts  of  the  Kings  of 
Israel.  His  prayer,  also,  and  how  God  was  entreated 
of  him,  and  all  his  sins  and  his  trespass  .  .  .  are 
written  in  the  history  of  Hozai.""^ 

Some  cases  of  parallelism  may  be  best  shown  by 
again  resorting  to  parallel  columns. 

And  the  king  went  And  Solomon  and  all  the  assembly 
to  Gibeon  to  sacrifice  with  him  went  to  the  high  place  which  was 
there ;  for  that  was  at  Gibeon ;  for  there  was  God's  tent  of 
the  great  high  place  meeting,  which  Moses  the  servant  of 
(I.  Kings  iii.  4).  Jahveh  had  made  in  the  wilderness   (II. 

Chron.  i.  3). 

The  Chronicler  says  indeed  that  Solomon  worship- 
ped at  the  high  place  in  Gibeon  ;  but  the  odium  of 
worshipping  at  such  a  place  is  removed  by  his  ex- 
planation that  the  tabernacle  was  there. 

*  It  might  seem  at  first  sight  that  the  Chronicler  had  sources  of 
information  which  were  unknown  to  the  author  of  Kings,  or,  at 
all  events,  unnamed  by  him.  There  is  this  difficulty  in  the  theory 
of  the  genuineness  of  these  sources :  the  additional  material  in 
Chronicles  is  always  in  a  peculiar  style,  whereas  the  excerpted 
portions  are  quoted  in  their  original  form,  and  have  a  style  easily 
distinguished  from  the  Chronicler's.  For  a  critical  discussion  of 
these  sources  reference  may  be  made  to  Driver,  L.  O.  T.*,  p.  527 
ff.,  and  to  the  other  Introductions. 


THE  MODERN-  POINT  OF  VIEW.  215 

And  again  the  anger  of  Jahveh         And  Satan  stood  up   against 
was  kindled  against  Israel,  and     Israel,    and    moved    David    to 
he  moved  David  against  them,     number  Israel  (I.  Chron.  xxi.  1). 
saying.  Go,   number  Israel   and 
Judah  (II.  Sam.  xxiv.  i). 

This  passage  shows  the  theological  development  in 
the  time  of  the  Chronicler,  the  idea  of  Satan  being  of 
late  origin.  There  are  some  other  interesting  differ- 
ences in  this  story.  The  Israelites,  according  to  Chron- 
icles, number  1,100,000,  against  800,000  in  Samuel  ; 
the  Judeans  470,000,  against  500,000;  in  Chronicles 
David  is  offered  three  years'  famine,  in  Samuel  seven 
years'  ;  according  to  Chronicles  David  paid  six  hun- 
dred shekels  of  gold  (about  $6,cco)  for  the  threshing 
floor  of  Araunah,  but  according  to  Samuel  fifty  shekels 
of  silver  ($30).  The  Chronicler  explains  that  David 
sacrificed  at  the  newly  erected  altar  because  he  could 
not  go  to  Gibeon,  where  the  tent  of  meeting  was,  be- 
cause he  was  afraid  of  the  sword  of  the  angel  of  the 
Lord. 

Hiram  king  of  Tyre  aided  The  cities  which  Huram  had 
Solomon  with  timbers  of  cedar  restored  to  Solomon,  Solomon 
and  with  timbers  of  cypress  and  built  them  up,  and  caused  the 
with  gold,  according  to  his  full  Israelites  to  dwell  there  (II. 
desire.  Then  king  Solomon  Chron.  viii.  2). 
gave  to  Hiram  twenty  cities  in 
the  land  of  Galilee  (I.  Kings  ix.  11). 

It  must  be  noted  here  that  according  to  Chronicles 
the  cities  were  given  by  Huram  to  Solomon.     *'  The 


2l6 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 


Chronicler  follows  later  and  erroneous  tradition,  which 
would  not  permit  the  immeasurably  rich  Solomon  to 
cede  any  cities."* 

But  when  Ahaziah  the  king  of  Now  the  destruction  of  Aha- 
Judah  saw  this,  he  fled  by  the  ziah  was  of  God,  in  that  he 
way  of  the  garden  house.  And  went  unto  Joram  ;  for  when  he 
Jehu  followed  after  him,  and  was  come,  he  went  out  with  Je- 
said,  Him  also.  They  smote  horam  unto  Jehu  the  son  of 
him  in  the  chariot  at  the  ascent  Nimshi,  whom  Jahveh  had 
of  Cxur,  which  is  by  Ibleam.  anointed  to  cut  off  the  house  of 
And  he  fled  to  Megiddo,  and  Ahab.  And  it  came  to  pass 
died  there.  And  his  servants  when  Jehu  was  executing  judg- 
carried  him  in  a  chariot  to  Jeru-  ment  upon  the  house  of  Ahab, 
salem,  and  buried  him  in  his  that  he  found  the  princes  of 
sepulchre  with  his  fathers  in  the  Judah,  and  the  sons  of  the 
city  of  David  (II.  Kings  ix.  I'ji.).     brethren    of    Ahaziah,    and   he 

slew  them.  And  he  sought 
Ahaziah,  and  they  caught  him 
(now  he  was  hiding  in  Samaria),  and  they  brought  him  to  Jehu, 
and  slew  him ;  and  they  buried  him,  for  they  said,  He  is  the  son 
of  Jehoshaphat,  who  sought  Jahveh  with  all  his  heart  (II.  Chron. 
xxii.  7-9). 

The  radical  difference  between  these  two  narratives 
is  obvious.  The  variations  are  partly  to  be  explained 
as  due  to  different  traditions,  partly  to  the  peculiar 
ideas  of  the  Chronicler.  The  visit  to  the  northern 
king  was,  in  the  eyes  of  the  Chronicler,  so  grave  a  sin 
that  its  proper  punishment  was  death. 

*Oettli,  "  Com.  on  Chronicles,"  in  loc. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  217 

And  his  servants  arose,  and  And  when  they  were  departed 
made  a  conspiracy,  and  smote  from  him  (for  they  abandoned 
Joash  at  Beth-Millo,  which  goes  him  in  great  diseases),  his  own 
down  to  Silla.  And  Jozacar  the  servants  conspired  against  him 
son  of  Shimeath,  and  Jehozabad  for  the  blood  of  the  sons  of  Je- 
the  son  of  Shomer,  his  servants,  hoiada  the  priest,  and  they  slew 
smote  him,  and  he  died  ;  and  him  on  his  bed,  and  he  died  ; 
they  buried  him  with  his  fathers  and  they  buried  him  in  the  city 
in  the  city  of  David  (II.  Kings  of  David;  but  they  buried  him 
xii.  2of.).  not  in  the  sepulchre  of  the  kings. 

And  these  are  they  that  con- 
spired against  him  :  Zabad  the  son  of  Shimeath  an  Ammonitess, 
and  Jehozabad  the  son  of  Shimrith  a  Moabitess  (II.  Chron. 
xxiv.  25!.). 

The  Chronicler  finds  the  moral  cause  of  Joash's  as- 
sassination, and  because  of  his  sin  denies  the  statement 
of  Kings  that  he  was  buried  with  his  fathers.  Or  the 
reason  for  his  burial  apart  from  his  fathers  may  be  that 
he  died  of  a  contagious  disease.  Chronicles  contra- 
dicts Kings  also  in  regard  to  Uzziah,  who  died  a  leper, 
saying  that  he  was  buried  "  with  his  fathers  in  the  field 
of  burial  which  belonged  to  the  kings  "  (II.  Chron. 
xxvi.  23;  cf.  II.  Kings  xv.  7).  This  is  one  of  the  many 
places  where  the  Chronicler  reads  into  earlier  history 
the  ideas  of  his  own  day. 

There  are  some  cases  in  which  the  Chronicler  places 
events  in  a  different  sequence  from  Kings.  Thus  he 
places  Josiah's  destruction  of  the  Asherahs,  images,  al- 
tars of  Baal,  etc.,  in  the  early  part  of  his  reign,  six  years 


21 8  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

before  the  discovery  of  the  book  of  the  Law.  Substan- 
tially the  same  thing  is  placed  in  Kings  after  the 
book  of  the  Law  is  found,  and  the  reformation  is  de- 
scribed as  an  attempt  to  put  the  new  law  into  execu- 
tion. 

The  facts  in  regard  to  the  Book  of  Chronicles  have 
been  sufHciently  exhibited,  although  the  incomplete- 
ness of  the  exhibit  is  freely  ackno\vledged.  But  a 
fuller  showing  would  only  strengthen  the  evidence  that 
the  Book  of  Chronicles  Is  written  with  a  purpose  other 
than  purely  historical.  As  a  historian,  the  defect  of 
the  Chronicler  is  his  lack  of  perspective.  The  institu- 
tions of  his  own  day  are  by  him  supposed  to  have 
existed  all  through  the  history.  He  depreciates  the 
Northern  Kingdom,  judging  it  purely  by  its  final  re- 
sults, and  on  the  other  hand  idealizes  the  kingdom  of 
Judah.  Hence  we  notice  the  uniformity  of  the  im- 
mense numbers  of  men  mustered,  the  magnificent  vic- 
tories gained  by  the  pious  kings  of  Judah,  the  absence 
of  such  a  humiliation  of  a  righteous  king  as  Hezekiah's 
surrender  to  Sennacherib. 

The  interpretative  element  is  so  prominent  in  Chron- 
icles that  it  is  not  a  first  class  historical  source,  espe- 
cially with  respect  to  the  origin  of  institutions.  But  if 
it  offers  little  aid  in  determining  the  religious  institu- 
tions of  the  age,  say,  of  David,  it  is  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance in  determining  those  of  the  Chronicler's  own 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  219 

time.  Hence  the  book  is  of  great  value  to  the  Biblical 
student;  but  its  value  depends  upon  his  knowing  the 
point  of  view  of  the  author,  and  using  it  accordingly. 
Harsh  judgments  on  Chronicles  have  often  been  made, 
but  the  ground  of  the  condemnation  shows  its  injus- 
tice. The  Chronicler  has  been  condemned  for  not  be- 
ing other  than  he  was.  As  soon  as  his  work  is  per- 
ceived to  be  apologetic  rather  than  historic,  the  ground 
of  the  unfavorable  criticism  is  taken  away. 

There  are  other  cases  where  needless  controversy 
has  raged  because  the  interpretative  character  of  a 
sacred  writing  was  not  recognized.  Take  the  account 
of  creation  in  Gen.  i.  i-ii.  4*.  For  centuries  that  was 
interpreted  as  a  historical  document  pure  and  sim- 
ple. Scientific  researches  showed  the  impossibility 
of  statements  there  made,  and  there  was  a  tendency 
on  the  one  side  to  a  hasty  condemnation  of  the  docu- 
ment as  worthless;  in  its  downfall  was  involved  a  de- 
preciation of  the  value  of  the  Scriptures  generally,  and 
indeed  of  the  Christian  religion  as  well.  On  the  other 
side  there  was  an  unreasoning,  passionate  defence  of 
the  indefensible. 

It  is  evident  now  that  the  interest  of  the  author  of 
that  story  was  not  in  the  facts  of  creation,  but  in  the 
divine  obligation  of  the  Sabbath  Day.  The  purpose  is 
didactic,  not  historical.  The  story  of  creation  is  ideal- 
ized so  as  to  fit  in  with  the  facts  of  the  divine  institu- 
tion of  the  holy  Sabbath.     The  modern  scientific  spirit 


220  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT, 

does  not  favor  such  compositions;  but  that  story  of  the 
creation  was  not  written  from  the  modern  point  of  view, 
nor  under  the  guidance  of  modern  literary  canons.  The 
writer  was  consumed  with  his  zeal  for  the  religious  in- 
stitutions which  God  had  established  for  His  people. 

The  evidence  everywhere  shows  that  the  inspired 
writers  of  the  Old  Testament  had  other  interests  than 
the  mere  recital  of  facts.  The  author  of  Kings  signifi- 
cantly refers  to  places  where  facts  may  be  found.  This 
implies  that  he  has  another  purpose  in  view;  if  any  one 
wants  mere  facts,  let  him  go  to  the  dry  records  in  the 
book  of  the  chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  and  of  Is- 
rael. The  writer's  purpose  is  higher;  he  desires  to  show 
the  religious  meaning  of  Israel's  history,  so  that  the 
present  generation  may  learn  the  lessons  of  the  past. 
If  one  reads  his  book  merely  as  history,  he  cannot  hope 
to  understand  it,  or  to  be  religiously  helped  by  it.  To 
derive  full  benefit  from  the  sacred  writers  we  must 
meet  them  on  their  own  ground,  not  try  to  force  them 
to  meet  us  on  ours. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


Z\)c  propbcte. 

THE  largest  contribution  to  the  development  of 
a  higher  spiritual  religion  among  the  Jews 
was  made  by  the  prophets.  The  number  of 
these  was  very  large.  From  the  time  of  Samuel,  who 
established  prophetic  schools  or  guilds,  until  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem,  the  prophets  were  a  large  and  influential 
class,  contributing  much  to  the  development  of  the 
State  and  of  the  Church.  But  those  who  did  most  for 
the  nation  were  the  solitary  voices  crying  in  the  wilder- 
ness. The  great  mass  of  prophets  were  not  moved  by 
the  disinterested  purpose  which  constrained  Amos  to 
continue  his  God-given  message,  even  when  enjoined 
to  silence  by  priest  and  king,  and  Jeremiah  to  persist 
in  his  pleas  for  righteousness  in  the  face  of  hard  pun- 
ishment and  at  the  risk  of  his  life  ;  yes,  even  when  his 
own  desires  prompted  him  to  silence.  The  spirit  of 
these  great  prophets  is  a  sufficient  guarantee  that  they 
were  not  deluded  in  their  belief  that  they  were  sent  by 
God. 

But  they  were  ever  in  a  minority.  There  was  only 
one  Micaiah  to  protest  against  the  false  utterances  of 
four  hundred  prophets  of  Baal.     Jeremiah  stood  alone, 


222  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

when  the  prophets  and  priests,  vigilantly  watching  an 
opportunity,  dragged  him  before  a  court  demanding 
his  death  on  the  charge  that  he  had  spoken  blasphemy. 
The  effect  that  these  prophets  produced  upon  their 
own  age  was,  therefore,  but  slight.  They  could  not 
save  their  country  from  ruin,  because  their  warning  went 
unheeded.  In  the  age  of  the  restoration  prophecy 
passed  away,  and  the  priesthood  became  the  predomi- 
nant religious  factor.  But  the  great  prophets  lived  in 
the  literary  age  of  Israel.  For  one  reason  or  another"^ 
many  of  their  messages  were  put  into  written  form, 
and  so  have  become  the  heritage  of  the  Christian 
Church. 

But  what  use  has  the  Church  made  of  these  prophe- 
cies ?  Has  it  taken  account  of  that  which  was  the  chief 
thing  with  their  authors,  the  establishment  of  righteous- 
ness in  the  nation  ?  Or  has  it  rather  laid  chief  stress 
upon  the  apologetic  aspect  of  prophecy,  especially  in 
connection  with  the    Messianic   element  ?     The   pre- 

*  We  are  not  often  given  the  reason  for  the  writing  of  a 
prophecy.  We  have,  however,  most  important  testimony  in  the 
case  of  Jeremiah.  Some  twenty  years  after  he  had  begun  to 
prophesy,  when  he  was  apparently  constrained  from  speaking 
orally  to  the  people,  he  dictated  his  past  utterances  to  Baruch,  his 
secretary,  hoping  that  in  this  more  enduring  form  they  would  move 
the  people  to  righteousness.  King  Jehoiakim  ruthlessly  destroyed 
this  whole  work,  but  Jeremiah  immediately  set  about  the  prepara- 
tion of  a  second  edition.     (See  Jer.  xxxvi.) 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  223 

dictive  part  of  prophecy  is  that  which  has  chiefly 
infli^enced  the  Christian  Church.  Now  that  the  apolo- 
getic value  of  prophecy  is  seen  to  be  quite  different 
from  what  was  formerly  supposed,  the  prophetic  writ- 
ings are  to  many  Christians  books  without  purpose 
or  meaning,  at  least  for  this  day. 

To  recover  the  prophets,  it  is  only  necessary  to  go 
back  to  their  own  age,  and  read  them  in  the  light 
of  their  times.  The  historical  setting  is  absolutely 
essential  for  the  right  and  full  understanding  of 
these  God-sent  preachers  of  righteousness.  Modern 
criticism  has  been  engaged  in  the  task  of  determin- 
ing both  the  particular  age  to  which  each  prophecy 
belongs,  and  also  the  true  historical  conditions  of  that 
time.  Its  work  has,  therefore,  been  chiefly  construc- 
tive and  conservative.  It  takes  prophecies  from  false 
positions  to  true  ones,  and  preserves  the  canonical 
prophets  as  a  vital  part  of  the  Christian  heritage. 
This  would  seem  to  be  no  mean  service  to  the  Chris- 
tian religion.  It  is  possible  now  to  read  the  prophets 
in  the  full  light  of  their  times,  and  with  a  clear  under- 
standing of  the  prophetic  motive.  The  object  of  the 
present  chapter  is  to  show  some  of  the  results  of  this 
criticism,  and  especially  the  ground  upon  which  the 
results  are  based.  No  attempt  will  be  made  to  cover 
the  whole  field  of  prophecy,  as  such  a  treatment  would 
require  a  volume  by  itself ;  but  enough  will  be  presented 
to  show  the  method  of  literary  criticism,  to  enable  the 


224  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

reader  to  judge  of  the  validity  of  the   results,  and  to 
appreciate  their  value  to  the  Christian  student. 

No  other  prophetic  book  has  been  subjected  to  such 
searching  criticism  as  the  Book  of  Isaiah.  There  was 
a  time  when  the  whole  sixty-six  chapters  were  gener- 
ally regarded  as  the  product  of  Isaiah,  the  son  of 
Amoz,  who  prophesied  in  Jerusalem  740-701  B.C. 
First,  the  long  excerpt  from  the  Book  of  Kings, 
chaps,  xxxvi.-xxxix.;  then  the  larger  section,  chaps. 
xl.-Ixvi.,  commonly  called  II.  Isaiah,  were  taken  away 
from  this  author;  finally  other  passages  of  greater  or 
less  extent  went  too,  until  the  question  could  fairly 
be  asked  whether  we  should  not  soon  have  such  a  host 
of  Isaiahs,  that  in  reality  we  should  have  none  at  all. 

The  greatest  English  critic,  if  not  the  greatest  living 
critic,  of  Isaiah  is  Canon  Cheyne,  of  Oxford.  For 
many  years  he  has  patiently  studied  this  great  book, 
publishing  his  results  from  time  to  time  in  monu- 
mental volumes  ;  but  always  finding,  or,  at  all  events, 
publishing,  a  more  radical  result,  until  we  have  the 
culmination  in  his  recent  ''  Introduction,"  and  in  the 
still  later  "  Polychrome  Bible."  From  this  latter  it 
will  be  interesting  to  note  what  prophecies  are  still 
assigned  to  the  son  of  Amoz.  These  are,  in  the  order 
given  by  Cheyne  :   ii.  6Mv.  i  *;  v.,t   ix.  8-x.  4  X\  vi. 

*  Except  ii.  9 ;  iii.  2,  3,  6,  7. 
t  Except  verses  15,  16,  25a,  30. 
t  Except  ix.  15,  16;  X.  4a. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  225 

I-13''*;  vii.  2-viii.  22,'^  xvii.f  xxviii.  1-4;  i.  29-31  ;  xiv. 
29-32;  X.  5-9,  13-15;  xiv.  24-27;  X.  28-32;  XX.  I, 
3-6;  xxviii.  7-22;  xxix.  1-4,6,9,  lo,  13-15;  xxx. 
1-17;  xxxi.  1-4;  xxii.  15-18;  xviii.  1-6;  i.  2-26; 
xxii.  1-14  ;  xvi.  14;  xxi.  16,  17.  There  are  some 
omissions  of  parts  of  verses  which  it  is  not  deemed 
necessary  to  specify.  To  gather  up  these  results  in 
a  more  convenient  form,  and  disregarding  small 
omissions,  Cheyne  ascribes  to  Isaiah  the  following 
chapters:  i -iii.,  v.-x.,  xiv.  (vs.  24-32),  xvii.,  xx., 
xxviii.  In  other  words,  chaps,  iv.,  xi.-xvi.,  xviii., 
xix.,  xxi.-xxvii.,  xxix.-lxvi.,  are,  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  verses,  non-Isaianic.  That  is,  less  than  one- 
fifth  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  was  actually  written  by  the 
son  of  Amoz. 

Cheyne  is  not  alone  in  his  main  contentions.  Duhm, 
e.g.,  is  in  virtual  agreement  with  him  ;  and  their  re- 
sults are  those  of  the  extreme  radical  critics  of  the 
present  day.  Driver  is  a  good  representative  of  the 
more  modern  criticism,  which  is,  at  the  same  time, 
scientific.  He  holds  that  the  following  chapters  are 
Isaianic  :  %    i.-xii.,    xiv.    24-32 ;    xv.,    xvi.,    xvii -xx., 

^Except  vii.  8^  15,  17,  21-25;  viii.  19,  20. 

t  Except  7,  8. 

\  Driver  expresses  the  general  doubt  as  to  the  Isaianic  authorship 
of  chap,  xii.,  and  also  of  xv.-xvi.  12,  which  may  have  been  written 
by  Isaiah  at  an  earlier  time,  or  may  be  quoted  from  some  earlier 
prophet. 


226  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

xxi.  ii-xxiii.,  xxviii.-xxxii.,  comprising  about  one- 
third  of  the  whole  book.'^"  Driver's  position  is  regarded 
as  the  most  conservative  that  is  critically  tenable,  while 
Cheyne's  may  certainly  be  looked  upon  as  going  as  far 
as  criticism  can,  and  considerably  further,  in  the 
writer's  opinion,  than  the  known  or  present  knowable 
facts  warrant. 

That  many  of  the  prophecies  in  this  book  do  not 
belong  to  Isaiah  is  clearly  demonstrable  ;  that  others 
do  not  may  be  made  highly  probable;  but  critical 
analysis  has  not  yet  advanced  to  the  point  to  make 
Cheyne's  results  more  than  an  important  suggestion 
of  possibilities.  There  are  four  sections  of  the  Book 
of  Isaiah,  besides  the  historical  section,  xxxvi.-xxxix,, 
which  belong  to  another  age  than  Isaiah,  viz.:  xiii. 
i-xiv.  23;  xxiv.-xxvii.,  xxxiv.-xxxv. ;  xl.-lxvi.  Mod- 
ern critics  are  absolutely  unanimous  in  regard  to  these. 
The  most  apparent  evidence  for  this  conclusion  is  easily 
presented. 

Before  considering  this  evidence,  however,  atten- 
tion must  be  called  to  a  fundamental  principle — the 
relation  of  the  prophet  to  his  times.  It  is  almost  an 
axiom  in  criticism  now,  that  an  allusion   to   a  known 

*  These  proportions  take  on  a  truer  look  if  we  remember  that 
chaps,  xxxvi.-lxvi.,  or  more  than  half  of  the  whole  book,  are  pro- 
nounced non-Isaianic  by  all  modern  critics,  even  by  many  con- 
servatives. Driver  accepts  as  Isaianic  nearly  twice  as  much  as 
Cheyne. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  227 

historical  event  fixes  the  tcTDiinus  a  quo  of  a  given 
prophecy.  But  this  is  not  based  on  an  a  priori  as- 
sumption. It  is  a  clear  deduction  from  the  known 
phenomena  of  prophecy.  The  prophet,  though  a  man 
raised  up  of  God  to  lead  his  people  to  righteousness, 
was  pre-eminently  a  man  of  his  tim.es.  This  is  clearly 
seen  in  all  the  cases  in  which  the  prophecies  have 
been  correctly  dated  by  tradition.  We  can  read  the 
history  of  Jeremiah's  age  much  better  in  his  book  than 
in  Kings.  The  subjects  of  which  the  prophets  spoke 
were  those  which  vitally  concerned  the  people  of  their 
day.  Why  did  Amos  leave  his  flocks  and  go  to  Bethel 
and  deliver  a  message  most  unwelcome  to  the  people 
there?  Because  he  could  "discern  the  signs  of  the 
times."  He  saw  the  danger  which  loomed  up  on  the 
horizon,  and  the  moral  decadence  of  the  people  which 
was  making  them  unfit  to  meet  it.  God  had  opened 
his  eyes  and  made  him  the  instrument  to  open  the 
eyes  of  the  people. 

It  is  of  course  possible  that  there  might  be  a  phe- 
nomenon in  prophecy  very  different  from  that  stated 
above.  A  prophet  might  care  little  for  the  affairs  of 
his  own  day,  and  concentrate  his  interest  wholly  on 
the  future.  In  fact,  almost  all  of  them  do  this,  althougli 
only  to  a  very  limited  extent.^      But  when   they  do 

*  This  is  one  of  the  points  at  issue  to-day  between  the  extreme  and 
the  conservative  critics.  Many  regard  such  pictures  of  the  future  as 
Amos  ix.  11-15;  Isa.  ii.  2-4;  ix.   1-7,  xi.,  as  later  interpolations. 


228  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

transport  -themselves  into  the  future,  the  identity  of 
authorship  is  seen  in  part  from  the  likeness  of  style  ;  in 
part  from  the  fact  that  a  prophet  transporting  himself 
into  the  future,  as  a  historian  burying  himself  in  the 
past,  is  almost  certain  incidentally  to  betray  his  own 
age  by  unmistakable  allusions. 

Formerly  Isa.  xl.-lxvi.  was  regarded  as  an  Isaianic 
composition.  It  was  never  contended  that  it  had  any 
bearing  upon  the  age  of  Isaiah  ;  it  was  freely  admitted 
that  the  subject  was  the  exile  in  Babylon.  But  it  was 
held,  as  Delitzsch  once  put  it,  that  the  prophet  lived 
*'  a  pneumatic  life  among  the  exiles."^  There  would 
be  nothing /^r^^  impossible  in  this,  though  it  would  be 
improbable.  But  there  are  other  facts  which  have  to  be 
considered.  These  prophecies  do  not  show  even  by 
any  chance  allusion  the  earlier  age  of  the  supposed 
writer.  In  other  cases  of  prediction,  the  agreement  in 
detail  with  the  future  condition  is  rarely  close,  and  in 
fact  is  often  quite  remote.  Finally,  the  style  is  usually 
quite  different  from  that  of  the  writer  to  whom  they 
are  credited.  There  is  therefore  good  ground  for  -giv- 
ing great  weight  to  the  historical  allusions.  We  may 
now  take  up  these  sections  of  the  book  of  Isaiah  in 
detail. 


Criticism  has,  in  my  judgment,  been  too  sweeping  in  dealing  with 
passages  of  this  character. 

*  This  is  found  in  the  early  editions  of  his  work  on   Isaiah.     In 
his  last  edition  he  accepted  the  critical  view. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W.  229 

I.  xiii.  i-xiv.  23.  The  evidence  in  favor  of  the 
Isaianic  authorship  of  this  passage  is  the  fact  that 
it  is  found  in  the  book  of  Isaiah,  with  genuine  Isaianic 
prophecies  before  and  after  it ;  and  that  it  has  the  head- 
ing, "The  oracle  on  Babylon  which  Isaiah  the  son  of 
Amoz  saw."  But  the  value  of  this  evidence  is  not  very 
great,  because  it  rests  on  a  late  Jewish  tradition.  The 
historical  section,  xxxvi.-xxxix.,  taken  from  the  Book 
of  Kings,  was  inserted  in  the  book  at  least  as  late  as  the 
exilic  period,  *  and  therefore  other  parts  might  have 
been  added.  It  is  impossible  to  go  into  the  question 
of  the  titles  to  prophecies  here.  The  subject  will  be 
discussed  more  fully  in  the  chapters  on  the  Psalter. 
They  are,  however,  surely  the  addition  of  the  editors 
who  arranged  the  prophecies,  and  were  much  later  than 
the  prophecies  themselves.  This  is  not  an  assumption, 
but  may  be  surely  proved.  The  evidence  then  is  sim- 
ply that  a  post-exiHc  editor  regarded  this  prophecy  as 
Isaiah's;  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  his  opinion 
was  expressed  at  least  two  centuries  later  than  Isaiah. f 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  good  deal  to  be  said 
for  the  contrary  view.  The  prophecy  deals  with  the 
downfall  of  Babylon.  But  Babylon  was  not  a  power 
formidable  to  the  Jews    in    Isaiah's   day.     His   utter- 

*  As  the  Book  of  Kings  carries  the  history  down  to  the  exilic 
period,  it  evidently  could  not  have  been  composed  before  that 
time. 

t  See  Cheyne's  note  in  Polychrome  Bible,  p.  173. 


230  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

ances  were  directed  toward  the  overthrow  of  Assyria  ; 
and  this  even  was  not  accomplished  till  a  century  after 
his  time.  Babylon  was  to  be  overthrown  by  the 
Medes  (xiii.  17).  This  people  did  not  become  an  effec- 
tive force  till  long  after  Isaiah's  age  ;  the  Median  em- 
pire was  conquered  by  Cyrus  in  549  B.C.,  before  he 
moved  against  Babylon.  This  prophecy  assumes  the 
exile  as  an  existing  fact.  Not  only  the  Jews  but 
other  nations  are  held  under  the  oppressive  tyranny 
(xiv.  2,  6,  12,  i6f.).  Lebanon  had  already  been  devas- 
tated by  the  Babylonians  (xiv.  8).  Jacob  and  Israel 
are  the  national  names  (xiv.  i) ;  but  in  Isaiah's  time 
these  terms  would  mean  the  northern  kingdom,  and 
the  exiles  from  the  north  cannot  be  the  ones  intended 
here,  for  their  exile  was  in  Assyria,  not  in  Babylonia. 
The  deliverance  of  the  Jews  from  exile  as  a  result  of 
the  fall  of  Babylon  is  the  real  subject  of  interest  to 
the  writer,  and  the  release  is  looked  upon  as  near  at 
hand.  The  bitter  spirit  against  Babylon,  the  exulta- 
tion over  her  downfall,  are  in  harmony  with  other 
passages  which  belong  to  the  period  of  the  exile. 
There  are  some  ideas  and  expressions  quite  unlike 
Isaiah.  In  regard  to  these,  Cheyne  says:  ""  The  bal- 
ance of  the  evidence  from  ideas,  phraseology  and 
style  is  in  favor  of  a  late  date  (even  if  a  number  of 
facts  be  set  aside  as  doubtful,  on  the  ground  of  their 
dependence  on  critical  decisions  as  to  the  date  of  other 
disputed  writings),  and  very  decidedly  opposed  to  the 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  231 

traditional  theory  of  Isaiah's  authorship"  (Polychrome 
Bible,  p.  1/3). 

The  above  considerations  require  us  to  remove  the 
prophecy  from  the  ag-e  of  Isaiah  ;  but  they  also  furnish 
the  data  for  fixing  the  true  date  within  very  small  limits. 
Cheyne  holds  that  it  is  impossible  to  decide  whether 
it  should  be  placed  before  or  after  Cyrus'  conquest  of 
Media,  549  B.C.  He  gives  the  date  550-545.  Driver 
assigns  it  to  the  period  "shortly  before  549  B.C."  (L. 
O.T.^p.  212). 

There  is  not  the  slightest  reference  in  the  prophecy 
to  the  events  of  Isaiah's  own  day ;  and  a  prophecy 
dealing  with  events  a  century  and  a  half  in  the  future 
could  have  no  meaning  for  the  men  of  that  time.  Up 
to  almost  the  last  hour  the  Jews  were  confident  that 
they  would  not  be  called  upon  to  endure  exile  in  Baby- 
lon. The  promise  of  deliverance  from  the  deplorable 
condition  still  more  than  a  century  away,  a  condition 
which  no  one  expected,  would  make  no  impression  upon 
the  people  of  that  early  age. 

How  different  the  prophecy  reads  when  we  place  it 
in  its  true  position.  The  tyrant  who  has  so  long  held 
down  the  Jews  with  his  oppressive  hand  is  about  to 
fall  before  the  irresistible  forces  which  are  mustering 
for  the  attack.  The  zealous  Jews,  who  had  sat  down 
and  wept  by  the  waters  of  Babylon  as  they  thought  of 
the  holy  city,  perceived  from  the  message  of  the  clear- 
sighted prophet  that  the  prisoners  of  Babylon  would 


232  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

soon  be  set  free,  that  they  would  soon  sing  again  the 
Lord's  song  in  the  Lord's  land.  The  bitterness  against 
Babylon  would  be  strange  from  Isaiah  ;  but  a  prophet 
of  the  exile,  who  had  tasted  of  the  bitter  cup,  might 
well  declare  the  realization  of  the  hope  cherished  in 
that  pathetic  exilic  Psalm  (cxxxvii.)  :  *  *'  Their  in- 
fants also  shall  be  dashed  in  pieces  before  their  eyes; 
their  houses  shall  be  spoiled,  and  their  wives  dishon- 
ored "  (xiii.  6;  cf.  Psa.  cxxxvii.  9). 

2.  xxiv.-xxvii.  This  prophecy  does  not  contain 
such  sure  and  simple  indications  of  date  as  the  one  just 
considered.  It  is  apocalyptic  in  character  and  not  al- 
ways easy  of  interpretation.  It  is  desirable  to  have  in 
mind  a  clear  idea  of  the  contents  of  the  prophecy. 

An  overwhelming  calamity  is  coming  upon  the 
whole  earth,  a  calamity  which  will  involve  every  class, 
and  which  will  cause  the  earth  to  melt  and  pass  away, 
being  profaned  by  the  touch  of  the  wicked  inhabitants. 
The  transgressors  will  be  engulfed  in  ruin  until  {q\n  are 
left.  The  sound  of  music  will  cease  ;  and  a  sound  of 
distress  will  take  its  place.  The  city  is  a  desolation, 
and  its  gates  are  ruined. 

Though  shouts  arise  in  praise  of  Jahveh's  majesty  and 
songs  of  glory  to  the  righteous,  yet  there  is  naught  for 
Israel  but  misery,  because  of  robbers  and  snares.  For 
the  world  is  turned  upside  down.     The  high  ones  of 

*  This  Psalm  may  have  been  written  later  than  assumed  above ; 
but  it  reflects  the  condition  and  feelings  of  the  exiles. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W.  233 

the  earth  shall  be  swept  away.  The  sun  and  moon 
shall  be  confused,  but  Jahveh  shall  be  king  in  Mount 
.  Zion  and  in  Jerusalem. 

A  song  of  praise  is  sung  because  of  the  wonderful 
things  done  by  Jahveh,  in  bringing  a  city  to  ruin, 
and  in  being  a  shelter  for  the  poor  and  needy.  On 
holy  Zion  will  Jahveh  make  a  feast  to  all  peoples,  de- 
stroying the  veils  which  are  spread  over  the  nations: 
that  is.  He  will  wipe  away  the  tears  and  remove  the 
reproach  of  His  people.  The  people  (Israel)  will  then 
clearly  recognize  their  God  for  whom  they  have 
waited  ;  His  hand  shall  rest  on  Mount  Zion  ;  and  con- 
fusion will  come  to  their  enemies. 

A  song  will  be  sung  in  praise  of  the  strong  city 
whose  walls  are  the  salvation  of  Jahveh,  for  He  is 
the  Rock  of  Ages.  But  the  lofty  city  He  has  brought 
low;  it  is  trodden  down  with  the  feet.  Jahveh's  peo- 
ple have  long  waited  for  this  day.  The  wicked  have 
taken  no  warning  from  the  uplifted  hand.  But  the 
righteous  have  passed  from  the  dominion  of  other 
gods,  and  now  praise  only  the  name  of  Jahveh. 

In  the  time  of  trouble  the  suffering  looked  to  Jah- 
veh, and  poured  out  their  prayer  to  Him.  The  earth 
shall  give  back  the  shades  to  life.  But  for  the  present 
the  faithful  must  withdraw  into  their  chambers  until 
the  storm  of  the  Lord's  wrath  shall  pass  by.  In  future 
days  Israel  shall  take  root  under  Jahveh's  protection, 
and  fill  the  surface  of  the  world  with  fruit. 


234  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

Israel's  punishment  was  not  like  that  of  his  op- 
pressors. The  deliverance  will  come  with  the  removal 
of  the  false  worship  which  caused  the  ruin.  The  Lord 
will  beat  out  the  ears  of  wheat  from  Egypt  to  the 
Euphrates,  and  one  by  one  shall  the  scattered  sons 
of  Israel  return  from  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth. 

This  outline  shows  the  general  character  of  the 
prophecy.  Jahveh  is  to  bring  a  judgment  upon  the 
whole  world.  Israel  has  been  in  the  deepest  suffering 
and  misery.  He  has  long  waited  for  an  expected  de- 
liverance which  the  overthrow  of  the  world  powers 
will  bring  about.  Surely  there  was  nothing  in  Isaiah's 
time  to  suggest  such  a  picture  as  this. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  clear  indications  of  the 
post-exilic  age.  The  people  are  re-established  in  Je- 
rusalem, but  in  so  poor  an  estate  that,  as  in  Zechariah, 
Jahveh's  abode  on  Mount  Zion  is  looked  upon  as  still 
future  (xxiv.  23).  The  people  still  suffer  the  reproach 
of  the  exile,  "  Where  is  now  thy  God  ?"  (xxv.  8).  The 
experience  of  those  who  had  struggled  to  rebuild  the 
fallen  state  had  been  bitterly  disappointing  (xxvi.  i/f.). 
The  return  of  the  Jews,  who  are  looked  upon  as  still 
widely  scattered,  was  yet  future  (xxvii.  I2f.).  The  peo- 
ple had  had  experience  of  the  dominion  of  foreign  gods 
over  them  (xxvi.  13).  The  walls  were  either  in  ruins, 
or  were  at  best  an  inefficient  protection  (xxvi.  i).  The 
national  names,  as  in  the  preceding  prophecy,  were 
Jacob    and    Israel    (xxvii.  6).      "  The  imagery,"  says 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF   VIEW.  235 

Chcyne,  "is  that  of  the  later  prophecies  and  of  apoca- 
lyptic writing-s "  (Polychrome  Bible,  p.  203).  "The 
ideal,  or  symbolic,  element,  is  much  larger  than  in  the 
pre-exilic  prophecies  generally;  and  the  closest  parallels 
are  Ezek.  xxxviii.,  xxxix.;  Joel  iii.  9-2 1 ;  Zcch.  xii.-xiv  " 
(Driver,  L.  O.  T/',  221). 

If  there  is  no  appropriate  place  in  the  age  of  Isaiah 
for  this  prophecy,  where  shall  we  look  for  its  origin  ? 
Opinions  differ  as  to  whether  it  belongs  to  the  early 
part  of  the  Persian  age  (538-332  B.C.)  or  to  the  late 
part.  This  is  a  very  considerable  range;  but  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  period  is  not  sufficiently  exact  to  make  a 
close  determination  of  the  date  possible,  especially  as 
the  prophecy  alludes  to  temporal  conditions  but  ob- 
scurely. 

There  is,  for  instance,  no  mention  of  the  name  of 
the  ''city  of  confusion,"  whose  destruction  is  of  such 
momentous  consequence  to  Israel,  nor  is  there  any  in- 
ference by  which  the  city  meant  can  be  surely  deter- 
mined. It  is  certain  that  in  the  post-exilic  period 
there  was  great  discouragement  among  the  people, 
and  the  hardships  which  they  endured  were  very  trying 
to  patience  and  faith.  The  splendid  anticipations  of 
the  great  prophet  (II.  Isaiah)  were  proving  to  be  small 
realizations.  The  community  had  been  cheered  on  by 
Haggai  and  Zechariah  to  the  great  task  of  rebuilding 
the  temple.  They  were  told  that  there  was  no  cure  for 
their  woes  as  long  as  the  house  of  God  was  in  ruins. 


.236  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

Then  the  temple  was  rebuilt,  and  the  sacrifices  were 
re-established,  but  later,  in  Nehemiah's  time,  the  con- 
dition of  the  Jews  was  still  deplorable.  Nehemiah  at- 
tempted to  remove  the  reproach  of  the  people  by  re- 
building the  walls,  so  that  the  nations  surrounding 
could  no  longer  harass  them;  but,  even  with  both  tem- 
ple and  walls,  the  condition  of  the  Jews  was  not  much 
improved.  The  peoples  around  them  were  inveterate 
in  their  hostility,  and  there  seemed  no  cure  for  their 
woes  but  such  a  world-judgment  as  that  pictured  in 
this  prophecy. 

If  we  could  be  certain  of  the  meaning  of  the  ob- 
scure reference  to  the  walls  in  xxvi.  i,  it  would  enable 
us  to  fix  the  date  more  precisely — "  Salvation  will  he 
appoint  as  walls  and  defences";  if  this  means  that  the 
salvation  of  God  shall  take  the  place  of  walls,  then  the 
prophecy  would  belong  to  the  time  shortly  before 
Nehemiah,  444  B.C.  If,  as  Duhm  holds,  the  passage 
should  be  rendered,  "  He  produces  walls  and  bulwarks 
for  deliverance,"  then  the  passage  would  refer  to  the 
restoration  of  the  walls  by  Nehemiah,  or,  at  a  later 
time,  by  Hyrcanus.  It  is,  perhaps,  necessary  to  rest 
content  with  the  general  post-exilic  period.  It  may  be 
said,  finally,  in  favor  of  the  later  part  of  this  period  that 
such  an  expectation  as  this  prophecy  reveals  would  be 
most  natural  after  other  things  had  failed. 

3.  xxxiv.,xxxv.  The  nations  are  called  upon  to  wit- 
ness Jehovah's  wrath  against  the  armed  hosts  of  the 


THE  MODERiV  POINT  OF  VIEW.  i^i 

world.  These  forces  will  be  devoted  to  destruction,  the 
mountains  being-  dissolved  with  the  blood  of  the  slain. 
The  destructive  forces  shall  reach  even  to  the  heav- 
ens. Edom  especially,  the  most  hated  of  the  hostile 
peoples,  shall  feel  the  sword  of  the  Lord;  the  Edom- 
ites  will  serve  as  a  great  sacrifice  to  Jehovah. 

Zion  in  her  struggles  came  at  last  to  the  time  of 
recompense.  The  desolation  of  Edom  will  be  terrible; 
streams  and  land  will  be  flaming  pitch  and  limestone, 
which  shall  burn  forever.  The  waste  land  shall  become 
the  abode  of  the  animals  of  the  desert.  The  palaces 
and  fortresses  shall  be  overgrown  with  briars  and  net- 
tles. 

The  wilderness  will  rejoice  as  the  glory  of  Jehovah  is 
revealed.  The  hands  of  the  weak  will  be  strengthened 
by  hope,  because  God  is  coming  to  the  rescue  of  His 
people.  Those  who  have  been  blind  will  be  able  to 
see;  the  lame  will  walk;  for  water  shall  issue  forth  even 
in  the  desert,  and  grass  shall  grow  there.  A  highway, 
the  way  of  holiness,  will  be  there,  over  which  the  res- 
cued will  pass,  safe  from  the  attacks  of  lions  or  other 
beasts  of  prey.  Jehovah's  redeemed  will  come  back  to 
Zion  with  joyful  songs. 

It  is  evident  from  this  outline  that  the  thing  which 
the  prophet  contemplates  as  future  is  the  return  of  the 
exiles  to  Zion  ;  the  thing  which  is  a  present  fact  is  the 
exile  itself  The  hands  of  the  Jewish  exiles  are  now 
feeble,  their  knees  are  weak  and  their  hearts  are  failing 


238  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

them  through  fear;  the  people  are  blind,  deaf,  dumb, 
and  lame.  The  bad  plight  of  the  people  will  be  changed 
when  they  see  a  divine  judgment  coming  upon  the  na- 
tions, and  realize  the  meaning  of  that  judgment.  The 
meaning  is  that  Zion's  struggles  are  over,  that  her  chil- 
dren will  soon  come  back  overflowing  with  joy.  They 
will  not  take  the  long  journey  by  way  of  the  north,  but 
on  the  highway  which  God  shall  raise  up:  they  will 
come  straight  across  the  Syrian  desert,  trom  Babylon 
to  Jerusalem. 

The  vengeance  of  the  Lord  will  be  visited  chiefly 
upon  Edom.  The  prophet- poet  depicts  exhaustively 
the  utter  desolation  which  is  coming  upon  that  hated 
land.  No  other  nation  is  mentioned,  either  expressly 
or  impliedly.  In  the  earlier  days  of  the  exile,  indigna- 
tion against  the  mighty  power  of  Babylon  was  almost 
lost  in  the  intense  bitterness  toward  the  descendants 
of  Esau.  The  affliction  from  the  hands  of  the  great 
world  power  was  tolerable  because  inevitable;  but  that 
Edomites  should  have  picked  up  Jewish  refugees  in 
the  wilderness  and  handed  them  over  to  Babylon,  that 
they  should  have  exulted  in  the  fall  of  Jerusalem's 
walls,  and  defiled  the  sacred  soil  of  Zion,  was  almost 
more  than  the  Jew  could  bear. 

This  prophecy,  like  the  others,  has  no  fitness  in  the 
times  of  Isaiah.  It  would  be  utterly  unintelligible  in 
that  time.  It  would  have  had  no  meaning  for  that 
generation.     But  in  the  first  part  of  the  exilic  period 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W,  239 

it  expresses  admirably  the  feelings  of  despair  and  of 
hope  which  alternately  moved  the  hearts  of  those  who 
were  chafing  under  the  restraints  of  the  bondage  in 
Bab3^1onia. 

Cheyne,  it  is  true,  dates  this  prophecy  400  B.C.  or 
later.  He  thinks  that  the  two  chapters  are  connected, 
and  may  have  come  from  the  same  author.  He  says 
further  that  "  both  were  evidently  written  in  Judah, 
and  are  late  post-exilic  works  "  (  Polychrome  Bible, 
p.  201). 

That  there  are  expressions  which  point  to  a  later 
date  than  the  exile  cannot  be  denied;  that  it  ''evi- 
dently was  written  in  Judah"  does  not  by  any  means 
seem  so  clear.  There  is  much  likeness  between  chap. 
XXXV.  and  H.  Isaiah,  but  it  is  not  certain  that  the  for- 
mer is  dependent  upon  the  latter,  as  Cheyne  holds,  still 
less  that  chap,  xxxiv.  is  ''  mainly  based  on  the  oracle 
on  Babylon!'  chap,  xiii.f ,  as  he  further  alleges. 

While  the  bitterness  toward  Edom  was  felt  at  a  much 
later  time  than  the  exile,  as  we  know  from  Malachi, 
there  is  most  reason,  on  the  whole,  to  place  this  proph- 
ecy in  the  exilic  period.  Driver  and  Dillman  assigned 
it  to  the  closing  years  of  the  exile.  But  that  would 
make  it  contemporary  with  H.  Isaiah,  and  make  diffi- 
cult of  explanation  the  silence  in  regard  to  Babylon  and 
Cyrus.  The  writer  does  not  seem  to  have  a  clear  idea 
of  the  source  from  which  Jehovah's  deliverance  will 
come  ;  but  contents  himself  with  the  assurance  that  it 


240  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

will  come,  and  that  it   will  be  the   hour  of  doom  for 
Edom. 

Before  passing  on  to  consider  the  last  section  of  the 
book  of  Isaiah,  a  brief  digression  may  be  permitted,  as 
it  is  suggested  by  a  query  likely  to  rise  in  the  reader's 
mind.  It  appears  from  the  consideration  of  the  above 
prophecies  that  all  modern  critics  are  agreed  that  they 
belong  to  an  age  much  later  than  Isaiah,  but  at  that 
point  disagreement  begins.  One  school  of  critics 
places  them  much  later  than  others.  All  agree  that 
they  could  not  have  been  written  before  the  exile  ;  but 
the  difterence  of  date  assigned  by  different  critics  is  in 
one  case  as  much  as  two  centuries. 

This  is  a  good  illustration  of  the  subject  discussed  in 
an  earlier  chapter  as  to  the  invalidation  of  the  results 
of  criticism  by  the  difference  of  opinion  among  the 
critics."^  The  people  want  positive  results.  If  they 
are  constrained  to  take  these  chapters  out  of  the  cate- 
gory of  Isaianic  writings,  they  do  not  want  to  leave 
them  suspended  in  mid-air,  but  want  a  reasonably  sure 
date  to  which  they  may  be  assigned.  It  is  only  by  reach- 
ing such  a  result  that  constructive  work  can  be  done. 
Some  may  feel  that  it  is  better  to  hold  on  to  a  discred- 
ited theory  at  least  until  another  theory  is  securely 
established  in  its  place. 

*  It  may  be  remarked  that  this  argument  is  a  two-edged  sword, 
and  cuts  both  ways.  There  is  also  great  difference  of  opinion 
among  the  upholders  of  traditional  views. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  241 

Much  sympathy  must  be  felt  for  such  a  feeling.  But 
it  will  be  recognized  that  there  are  two  things  to  con- 
sider: the  invalidation  of  critical  results  by  the  failure 
of  critics  to  agree,  and  the  unwillingness  to  abandon 
one  theory  until  a  better  and  unanimously  accepted 
theory  takes  its  place.  The  essential  question  in  these 
cases  is  not  between  one  precise  date  and  another. 
Even  in  regard  to  the  undisputed  prophecies  of  Isaiah 
there  is  much  difference  of  opinion  among  all  classes 
of  critics,  from  the  most  ultra-conservative  to  the  most 
radical,  as  to  the  exact  date.  Chap,  i.,  for  example,  is 
regarded  by  some  as  the  earliest  of  Isaiah's  prophecies, 
and  by  others  as  the  latest.  It  is  variously  dated  within 
the  whole  forty  years  of  the  prophet's  career.  The  es- 
sential question  is  always,  at  first,  whether  the  prophecy 
is  Isaianic  or  not.  There  is  absolute  unanimity  of  opin- 
ion among  modern  critics  in  the  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion. But  it  is  not  essential  to  the  validity  of  this  result 
that  the  agreement  should  go  so  far  as  to  fix  the  exact 
year  of  composition. 

Some  critics  show  a  marked  tendency  to  date  all 
such  prophecies  at  the  latest  period  possible,  others  at 
the  earliest  period  that  will  meet  the  facts.  It  is  not  a 
vital  matter  whether  early  or  late  ;  but  it  often  must  hap- 
pen that  there  is  not  sufificient  evidence  in  the  proph- 
ecy to  determine  its  period  more  than  approximately, 
and  external  evidence  fails  us  entirely.  The  lack  of 
full  knowledge  of  the  post-exilic  period  greatly  ham- 


242  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

pers  the  critic  in  fixing  the  date  of  obscure  prophecies. 
It  will  appear,  it  is  hoped,  from  the  consideration  of 
the  prophecies  treated  above,  that  criticism  has  accom- 
plished enough  to  show  a  real  though  not  a  final  work 
of  construction.  It  is  satisfactory,  at  any  rate,  to  turn 
to  a  great  prophecy,  or  collection  of  prophecies,  in 
regard  to  which  there  is  more  accord  on  the  posi- 
tive side. 

4.  xl.-lxvi.  On  the  religious  side  there  are  no  finer 
prophecies  than  those  in  this  collection.  There  are 
none  which  better  repay  an  exhaustive  study.  The 
constructive  study  has  been  foremost  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  criticism  of  this  collection.  For  it  was  the 
clear  perception  of  the  actual  period  to  which  the 
prophecies  belong  that  led  irresistibly  to  their  separa- 
tion from  the  age  of  Isaiah. 

The  question  of  the  unity  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  is 
now  obsolete;  but  the  question  of  the  unity  of  II.  Isaiah 
is  still  under  discussion.  No  one  can  easily  doubt  that 
more  than  one  hand  has  been  at  work  here;  but  the 
question  is  whether  the  alien  parts  were  incorporated 
by  the  author  of  the  major  part  of  this  great  work,  or 
whether  the  present  book  is  the  result  of  a  compilation 
of  several  different  prophecies  belonging  to  different 
periods. 

A  glance  through  the  Polychrome  Bible  shows 
Cheyne's  conclusions.  The  original  prophecies  of  the 
'*  second    Isaiah "  are    colored    dark  red.      These  are 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW, 


243 


chaps,  xl.-xlviii. — except  xlii.  1-7,  xliv.  9-20,  xlvi.  6- 
8,  and  parts  of  xlviii.  The  passages  which  deal  with 
the  *'  servant  of  Jehovah  "  are  marked  by  dark  purple. 
Light  blue  marks  passages  written  or  inserted  by  an 
editor.  These  are  in  the  main  xliv.  9-20  ;  xlvi.  6-Z\ 
xlviii.  I,  2,  4,  5^  7^,  8^-10,  17-19,  22;  Ivii.  13^-21. 
Light  red  marks  passages  which  belong  to  various 
other  sources',  these  are  in  the  main  xlix.  13-I.  3; 
li.  i-lii.  2,  7-12  ;  liv.  i-lvii.  13'';  Iviii.-lxvi.  There  are 
also  minor  passages  in  dark  blue.  There  were,  there- 
fore, several  different  hands  in  the  composition  of  this 
work,  of  which  the  "  great  unknown  "  was  the  basis. 
The  dates  assigned  by  Cheyne  extend  from  550-545 
B.C.  (the  second  Isaiah)  to  350  B.C. 

That  the  whole  of  this  great  work  does  not  belong 
to  one  brief  period  has  been  shown  long  ago.*  The 
prophecy  begins  with  the  period  when  the  discerning 
eye  of  a  God-illumined  prophet  can  clearly  see  that 
great  event  which  is  still  veiled  from  the  people — the 
fall  of  Babylon.  We  can  see  as  we  read  on  the  doom 
of  the  great  city  drawing  nearer  and  nearer;  we  see  the 
blow  fall  which  breaks  the  fetters  of  the  exiled  Jews; 
we  can  follow  the  latter  on  the  weary  road  back  toZion, 
and  see  their  hard  struggles  in  their  attempt  to  bring 
order  out  of  that  chaos.     But  it  is  not  so  certain  that 

♦The  present  writer  some  years  ago  published  an  essay  on  this 
subject,  "The  Historical  Movement  Traceable  in  Isaiah  xl.- 
Ixvi." — Andover  Review,  August,  1891. 


244  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

in  this  collection  we  can  go  onto  the  age  of  Nehemiah, 
and  even  much  further. 

It  is  clear,  further,  that  the  ^'  servant  "  passages  have 
marked  points  in  common  as  well  as  in  contrast.  It  is 
probable  that  the  "second  Isaiah  "  was  not  the  author 
of  that  queen  of  Messianic  prophecies,  Hi.  13-liii.;  but 
it  is  not  clear  that  this  gem  was  not  incorporated  by 
the  author  of  this  book.  It  is  true  that  some  of  the 
later  chapters,  especially  Ixiii.-lxvi  ,  may  well  be  as- 
signed to  a  later  writer ;  but  there  does  not  seem  to 
be  sufBcient  ground  for  such  a  radical  dissection  as 
Cheyne's.  But  all  this  is  incidental  to  our  main  pur- 
pose, which  is  to  show  that  this  prophetic  work  belongs 
to  the  period  of  the  exile,  and  that  its  religious  and  de- 
votional value  is  greatly  enhanced  by  reading  it  in  its 
true  connection. 

God  has  not  left  Himself  without  witness  among 
the  sons  of  men  in  any  age,  least  of  all  in  that  which 
was  the  most  disheartening  in  all  the  history  of  Israel. 
Jeremiah  declares  that  there  will  be  a  time  when  men 
will  no  longer  say,  the  "  God  who  brought  us  out  of 
Egypt,"  but  **the  God  who  brought  us  out  of  Baby- 
lon." The  exile  in  Babylonia  was  of  greater  moment 
than  the  bondage  in  Egypt.  Then  the  nation's  life  had 
not  yet  begun  ;  Israel  consisted  of  wandering  tribes  of 
nomads.  But  after  six  centuries  of  national  life  in 
Canaan,  the  nation  was  swept  away,  and  held  in  a  bond- 
age that  was  none  the  less  galling  that  it  was  light. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  245 

The  exiles  were  not  compelled  to  make  bricks  without 
straw ;  but  they  were  denied  recourse  to  the  holy  soil, 
and  even  Zion  could  have  meant  little  to  the  pious  at 
that  time,  because  it  was  a  scene  of  desolation,  and 
the  temple  was  no  more. 

The  time-serving  prophets  had  deluded  the  exiles 
with  false  hopes  of  a  speedy  return  before  Jerusalem 
actually  fell.  After  that  there  was  the  inevitable  re- 
action, and  hope  soon  died.  The  pious  might  indeed 
say: 

*•  If  I  forget  thee,  O  Jerusalem, 
Let  my  right  hand  forget. 
Let  my  tongue  cleave  to  my  mouth, 
If  I  remember  thee  not ; 
If  I  prefer  not  Jerusalem 
Above  my  chief  joy."— PSA.  cxxxvii.  5f. 

But  for  the  mass  of  the  people  there  was  nothing  to 
do  but  build  houses,  plant  vineyards,  marry  wives  and 
beget  children,  as  Jeremiah  had  advised.  That  the 
exile  would  be  long  was  becoming  only  too  plain. 
Those  who  had  been  born  in  the  holy  land,  and  had 
made  the  long  march  to  Babylon  as  captives,  were  fast 
dying  off.  A  new  generation,  born  on  foreign  soil,  was 
growing  up,  to  whom  the  knowledge  of  the  national 
life  in  Judah  came  only  from  the  diligent  instruction  of 
the  fathers.  They  had  been  faithfully  taught  that  they 
were  citizens  of  another  country.  But  time  does  its 
work,  however  difficult  the  task  may  be.   Jewish  homes 


246  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  PROM 

and  interests  in  Babylonia  had  taken  on  a  stable  char- 
acter. The  zeal  for  the  Judaean  life  cooled  among 
the  masses,  and  must  be  rekindled  if  the  people  were 
to  be  ready  to  take  advantage  of  the  liberty  which  was 
to  come. 

The  second  Isaiah  was  mainly  the  fire  which  re- 
kindled the  zeal  that  made  the  restoration  possible. 
Was  that  ''second  Isaiah"  an  old  esoteric  prophecy 
cherished  for  a  century  and  a  half  until  its  unintelligible 
riddles  should  take  on  meaning  ?  Or  was  it  a  living 
voice  raised  up  of  God  to  meet  the  occasion  when  it 
came?  On  a  priori  grounds,  the  latter  would  be  far 
more  probable,  and  it  is  the  only  hypothesis  which  is  in 
harmony  with  the  phenomena  of  the  prophecy  itself. 
This  prophet  was  pecuHarly  a  man  of  his  time.  He 
breathes  the  air  of  the  exile,  though  his  hopes  are  so 
steadfastly  built  upon  the  new  Jerusalem  which  he  saw 
rising  in  the  distance. 

The  convincing  evidence  that  this  book  belongs  to 
the  exile  and  not  to  the  time  of  Isaiah  is  found  in  the 
book  itself.  Let  any  one  read  chapter  after  chapter 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  exilic  period,  and  he  will 
be  persuaded  that  the  theory  that  it  originated  in  any 
other  age  bristles  with  difficulties  not  easy  to  meet. 
The  only  evidence  of  Isaianic  authorship  is  that  this 
prophecy  constitutes  a  part  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah.  But 
even  this  argument  has  less  cogency  here  than  for 
earher  chapters ;    because  this  collection  is  separated 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  247 

from  the  other  prophecies  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  by  a 
long  historical  passage  which,  as  already  shown,  could 
not  have  been  added  before  the  exile.  The  name  of 
Isaiah  is  not  found  in  the  collection  anywhere  ;  there 
is  no  allusion  to  him  or  to  his  times  ;  and  when  the 
author  does  revert  to  himself,  or  use  the  first  person, 
we  see  a  very  different  personage  from  the  Isaiah  we 
know. 

There  is  no  vagueness  in  the  description  of  the  Jews* 
condition,  nor  in  the  manner  of  their  release.  That 
the  Jews  are  represented  as  in  actual  captivity  in  Baby- 
lon is  clear  from  every  page.  The  prophet  sees  the 
conquering  career  of  Cyrus,  and  perceives  that  Baby- 
lon is  the  goal  of  his  campaigns.  He  knows  that  the 
hard  policy  of  Babylon,  which  *'  releases  not  his  pris- 
oners,'' is  contrary  to  the  milder  policy  of  Cyrus,  who 
hopes  to  rule  subject  peoples  by  gaining  their  good- 
will— the  only  method  in  the  whole  history  of  the 
world  which  has  proved  permanently  effective.  On 
Cyrus,  therefore,  the  prophet's  hopes  are  built.  Cyrus 
is  the  instrument  of  his  God — not  an  instrument  of 
wrath,  as  the  Assyrians  and  Chaldeans  had  been,  to 
be  used,  and  then  broken  and  cast  away — but  an  in- 
strument of  love. 

Therefore,  Cyrus  is  praised  above  any  foreign  ruler 
known  in  the  Old  Testament.  Cyrus'  present  con- 
quests are  due  to  Jehovah's  favor  :  *'  He  gives  nations 
before  him,  and  causes  him  to  subdue  kings  ;  He  gives 


248  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

them  to  his  sword  like  the  dust,  as  the  driven  stubble 
to  his  bow"  (xli.  2).  Jehovah  is  the  One  that  says  of 
Cyrus :  ''  He  is  my  shepherd,  and  shall  complete  all 
viy  pleasure''  (xliv.  28).  But  there  is  greater  honor 
than  this  ;  for  the  prophet  goes  on  to  say  :  **  Thus 
saith  Jahveh  to  his  anointed  {i,e.,  to  His  Messiah),  to 
Cyrus,  of  whose  right  hand  I  have  taken  hold.  .  .  . 
I  will  go  before  thee,  and  make  the  rugged  places 
plain.  Doors  of  brass  I  v/ill  break  to  pieces,  and  bars 
of  iron  I  will  cut  asunder,  that  thou  mayest  know  that 
I  Jahveh,  who  am  calling  thee  by  thy  name,  am  the 
God  of  Israel "  (xlv.  1-3).  But  Cyrus  was  not  conscious 
of  the  power  by  which  his  conquests  were  so  easily  ac- 
complished, nor  was  that  power  conferred  for  any  favor 
to  him  :  "  For  the  sake  of  my  servant  Jacob,  and  Israel 
my  chosen,  though  thou  knowest  me  not.  I  will  gird 
thee,  though  thou  knowest  me  not  "  {ib.,  4f.). 

It  appears  that  the  idea  of  owing  their  release  to  a 
foreign  conqueror  was  not  agreeable  to  the  patriotic 
Jews.  They  would  prefer  to  owe  their  freedom  to  a 
hero  whom  God  had  raised  up  from  among  themselves, 
as  Moses  was  raised  up  to  take  their  fathers  out  of  Egypt, 
and  as  the  native  "judges  "  were  raised  up  to  expel  the 
enemy  from  their  land  ;  or  they  would  prefer  that  God 
should  directly  intervene,  as  the  Chronicler  was  so  fond 
of  representing  Him  as  doing.  The  prophet  rebukes 
the  spirit  that  ventures  to  question  the  mysterious  ways 
of  Providence  :  "  Woe  to  him  that  striveth  with  the  one 


THE  MODERN-  POINT  OF  VIE  W.  249  i 

that  formed  him,  a  potsherd  among-   the   potsherds  of        | 
the  ground  !     Shall   the   clay  say  to  him  that  formed         \ 
it,  What  makest  thou  ?  or,  Thy  work  has  no   hands  ?        \ 
Woe  unto  him  who  says  to  a  father.  What  begettest 
thou?    or   to   a    woman,   With  what    travailest  thou?        ' 
.     .     .     I  have  made  the  earth,  and  man  upon  it  have        : 
I   created.     My   own   hands   have    stretched    out    the 
heavens,  and  all  their  host  have  I  commanded  [or  are        1 
under  my  orders].     I  have  raised  him   [Cyrus]   up  in 
righteousness,  and  I   will   make  straight  all  his  ways. 
He  shall  build  my  city,  and  he  shall  let  my  exiles  go 
free,  without  price  and  without  reward,  saith  Jahveh 
of  hosts"  (xlv.  9-13). 

There  is  a  brief  passage  which   shows   very  clearly         | 
the  manner  in  which  Nabonidus,  the  last  king  of  Baby- 
lon, tried  to  save  the  city.     "  Bel  bows  down,  Nebo 
stoops  ;  their  idols  are  upon  the  beasts,  and  upon  the 
cattle  ;  your  portable  things  are  a   load,  a   burden  to 
the  weary  beast.     They   stoop,    they  bow   down    to- 
gether ;   they  are  not  able  to  deliver  the  burden,  but 
are  themselves  going  into  captivity  "  (xlvi.  if).    Naboni- 
dus saw  that  the  city  was  ill  prepared  to  withstand         | 
the  conqueror.      He,  therefore,  brought  into  Babylon         \ 
the  deities  from  many  sacred  places.^'"     Cyrus  cites  to         ^ 
his  own  credit  the  fact  that  he  restored  these  deities  to 

their  ancient  shrines. 

_  I 

*Sayce  holds  that  this  was  done  in  an  attempt  at  the  centrali- 
zation and  unification  of  religion.  i 


250  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

That  the  prophet  should  exult  in  the  downfall  of 
the  tyrant  was  natural.  He  had  experienced  the  hard- 
ships of  the  exilic  life.  So  he  cries  with  contempt : 
"  Get  thee  down  and  sit  upon  dust,  O  virgin  daughter 
of  Babylon,  sit  on  the  earth  without  a  throne,  O 
daughter  of  the  Chaldeans  :  for  they  shall  no  more 
call  thee  tender  and  delicate.  Take  millstones,  and 
grind  meal:  remove  thy  veil,  strip  off  the  train,  lay  bare 
the  leg,  pass  through  the  river  "  (xlvii.  if.).  When  Bab}^- 
lon  experienced  the  humiliation  which  it  had  inflicted 
upon  so  many  other  peoples,  the  prophet  recognizes 
the  hour  of  Israel's  deliverance,  and  closes  the  first 
section  of  his  prophecy  with  the  cry :  "  Go  forth  from 
Babylon,  flee  from  the  Chaldeans,  with  a  voice  of  sing- 
ing make  known,  tell  this,  spread  it  forth  unto  the 
end  of  the  earth  :  say  Jahveh  has  redeemed  his  servant 
Jacob"  (xlviii.  20). 

As  before  stated,  the  most  adequate  presentation  of 
the  evidence  for  the  exilic  date  of  this  prophecy  is  its 
reading  entire  in  the  light  of  the  true  historical  situa- 
tion. A  few  passages  have  been  quoted  which  show 
this  situation  clearly.  Further"  investigation  may  be 
left  to  the  reader,  while  we  turn  to  another  problem. 

It  may  seem  difficult  to  account  for  the  Book  of 
Isaiah  in  its  present  form,  if  it  actually  contains  writ- 
ings from  several  authors,  the  prophecies  ranging  from 
the  year  740  B.C.,  the  year  of  Isaiah's  call,  to  400  B.C., 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  251 

or  perhaps  even  later.  But  it  is  not  impossible  to 
show  that  the  arrangement  of  the  book  does  not  create 
any  serious  difficulty.  That  the  present  distribution 
of  the  prophecies  in  the  various  prophetic  books  is  late 
may  be  pretty  conclusively  demonstrated.  In  the  Book 
of  Jeremiah,  for  example,  the  order  of  the  prophecies 
in  the  LXX.  is  very  different  from  that  in  the  He- 
brew. This  shows  that  at  about  the  year  200  B.C.  the 
prophecies  had  not  yet  assumed  a  final  order,  in  other 
words,  the  process  of  editing  went  on  after  that  time. 

Further,  it  is  clear  that  the  present  Book  of  Isaiah, 
like  the  present  Book  of  Psalms,  was  made  up  by  com- 
bining already  existing  smaller  collections.  To  take 
a  former  example,  we  know  that  Jeremiah  made  the 
first  collection  of  his  prophecies  twenty  years  after  he 
began  his  prophetic  career.  We  have  the  history  of 
his  writing  in  chap,  xxxvi.  But  in  the  earlier  chap- 
ters are  many  prophecies  which  belong  to  a  later  date 
than  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakin.  This  shows  that 
Jeremiah's  prophecies  were  edited  after  he  had  made 
his  first  collection.* 

We  have  the  evidence  for  these  smaller  collections 
of  Isaiah  in  the  book  itself — in  the  headings  and  in  the 

*  The  year  when  Jeremiah  wrote  his  prophecies  was  604  B.C. 
But  chap.  xiii.  belongs  to  597  B.C.;  xxi.  i-io  belongs  to  the  last 
days  of  Zedekiah,  who  reigned  596-586  B.C.;  xxiv.  27-29  belongs 
to  the  early  part  of  the  same  reign  ;  xxx.-xxxiv.  belongs  to  the  days 
of  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  shortly  before  586, 


252  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

arrangement.  The  heading-  to  chap.  i.  states  that  this 
is  the  vision  which  Isaiah  saw  in  the  reigns  of  Uzziah, 
Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah.  This  covers  the  whole 
range  of  Isaiah's  prophetic  Hfe,  but  it  was  originally  used 
as  a  heading  for  the  collection,  chaps,  i.-xii.,  in  which 
there  are  prophecies  from  all  these  years.  The  reign  of 
Uzziah  is  deduced  from  vi.  i,  but  incorrectly,  because 
Isaiah  was  called  in  the  year  in  which  he  died.  But 
in  ii.  I  we  have  another  heading,  briefer,  and  without 
date,  which  was  originally  the  heading  to  a  small  col- 
lection of  Isaiah's  prophecies,  probably  ii.-v.,  a  head- 
ing which  was  not  disturbed  when  chap.  i.  was 
prefixed.  The  heading  to  chap.  vi.  is  suited  only  for 
that  chapter  ;  but  the  chapter  itself  shows  that  it  can- 
not  be  here  in  its  original  place.  Very  likely  it  was 
intended,  as  Cheyne  says,  for  a  suitable  prologue  to  the 
prophecies  uttered  during  the  Syro-Ephraimitish  war. 
At  that  time  Isaiah  had  his  first  decided  experience 
of  the  refusal  of  the  people  to  hear.  This  experience 
impressed  upon  him  the  force  of  the  inaugural  vision 
which  had  been  designed  to  teach  him,  among  other 
things,  that  his  message  would  not  fall  upon  willing 
ears;  but  would,  on  the  contrary,  fix  the  rebellious 
purposes  of  a  disobedient  people. 

In  chaps,  xiii.-xxiii.  there  is  a  collection  of  prophe- 
cies which  originally  existed  separately.  The  basis  of 
the  collection  is  the  subject  matter.  Except  chap, 
xxii.,  they  all  deal  with  foreign  nations.     The  name  of 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  253 

Isaiah,  which  we  find  in  xiii.  i,  may  have  been  intended 
by  the  late  editor  to  cover  the  whole  collection. 
Probably  the  original  collection  was  a  group  of  genu- 
ine Isaianic  prophecies  against  foreign  nations,  to  which 
additions  of  anonymous  prophecies  were  made  without 
an  attempt  to  indicate  which  were  actually  Isaiah's. 
In  this  collection  most  of  the  sub-titles  merely  give  the 
subject;  as,  "  The  oracle  on  Moab."  But  we  find  also 
the  date ;  as,  **  In  the  year  that  King  Ahaz  died"  (xiv. 
28). 

Another  collection  was  xxiv.-xxxv.,  made  up  partly 
of  Isaianic  prophecies.  There  is  a  similarity  of  subject 
matter  which  is  sufficient  to  explain  the  addition  of 
later  prophecies.  Chaps,  xxviii.-xxxiii.  all  deal  with  the 
overthrow  of  Assyria  by  Jehovah  in  the  land  of  Judah. 
The  other  two  sections,  which  have  already  been  con- 
sidered at  some  length,  xxiv.-xxvii.,  xxxiv.-xxxv., 
may  have  found  a  place  here,  because  they,  too,  relate 
to  the  overthrow  of  the  powers  which  were  oppressive 
to  God's  people.  The  first  large  division  of  the  Book 
of  Isaiah,  chaps,  i.-xxxv.,  consists,  therefore,  of  three 
smaller  collections,  each  of  which  gradually  grew  into 
its  present  form. 

We  may  infer  from  this  (as  well  as  from  other  cases) 
that  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  were  originally  written 
and  issued  either  separately  or  in  very  small  collec- 
tions, and  issued  without  the  name  of  the  author,  be- 
cause the  name  would  be  unnecessary.     To  insure  the 


254  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT, 

preservation  of  these  prophecies,  they  began  to  be 
collected  in  groups,  with  titles.  There  seems  to  have 
been  no  idea  of  incongruity  in  adding  prophecies 
from  other  authors.  The  author  was  regarded  as  of  little 
importance  compared  with  the  matter  of  the  prophecy. 
Prophecies  which  promised  the  overthrow  of  Judah's 
enemies  would  naturally  be  brought  together  without 
much  regard  to  authorship.  So  prophecies  which 
promised  the  downfall  of  the  mighty  empires  which 
threatened  the  very  existence  of  Judah,  namely,  As- 
syria and  Babylonia,  would  be  placed  side  by  side,  even 
though  their  authors  lived  two  centuries  apart. 

If  our  interests  were  the  same  as  the  Jewish  editors, 
we  should  find  no  embarrassment  in  this  mixing  of 
the  products  of  quite  different  ages  ;  that  is,  if  we 
were  reading  with  a  single  eye  to  the  future  destiny 
of  Israel,  the  origin  of  the  oracle  would  signify  com- 
paratively little.  But  if  we  read  with  a  historical  in- 
terest, the  actual  occasion  of  each  prophecy  becomes 
of  great  moment.  We  then  require,  as  the  basis  of  a 
proper  understanding  of  the  words,  a  comprehensive 
knowledge  of  the  circumstances  amidst  which  the 
prophet  spoke.  This  is  the  great  gain  which  modern 
criticism  has  made  for  the  student  of  prophecy. 


CHAPTER   IX. 


^be  Booft  of  psalme. 

I.    THE   EXTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 

THERE  is  no  part  of  the  Old  Testament  which 
has  so  deeply  influenced  the  Christian  heart 
as  the  Psalter.  The  great  majority  of  people 
have  read  the  Psalms  simply  for  their  spiritual  nour- 
ishment. There  is  probably  no  critical  student  who  be- 
comes so  absorbed  in  the  literary  criticism  of  the  Psalter 
as  to  be  insensible  to  the  revelation  of  spiritual  truth 
contained  therein.  Many  of  the  priceless  gems  lie  on 
the  surface  ;  others  appear  only  as  one  enters  into  the 
life  and  soul  of  the  writer.  The  greatest  contribution 
which  the  Psalms  can  make  to  any  age  is  the  divine 
truths  they  reveal,  the  disclosures  of  the  divinely 
enlightened  human  soul.  This  element  of  the  Psalm 
Book  is  beyond  the  pale  of  literary  criticism.  No  mat- 
ter what  radical  results  may  be  attained  or  claimed,  the 
spiritual  truths  cannot  be  touched  by  criticism.  It  is 
well  to  preface  any  critical  study  of  the  Psalter  with 
this  assurance.  It  sets  the  mind  at  ease  to  know 
that  the  soul's  food  cannot  be  disturbed. 


256  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

But  why,  then,  study  the  Psalms  critically  ?  Because 
critical  study  is  the  handmaid  (but  not  the  master)  of 
devotional  study;  because  the  spiritual  truths  stand 
out  more  clearly  as  we  comprehend  the  circumstances 
which  gave  rise  to  these  outbreathings  of  earnest 
human  souls.  Some  Hebrew  poet  sang  his  song, 
*'The  Lord  is  my  Shepherd."  Whether  this  poet  was 
David  or  some  other,  we  are  sure  he  was  one  who 
understood  Hebrew  shepherd  life,  and  saw  in  that  the 
relation  of  God  to  man.  If  we  hope  to  grasp  the 
force  of  the  poet's  metaphor,  we,  too,  must  under- 
stand the  meaning  of  the  life  of  a  faithful  Hebrew 
shepherd. 

The  critical  questions  which  are  at  present  to  the 
fore  in  the  study  of  the  Psalms  are  not  those  of 
analysis,  but  those  of  date.  The  extreme  position  on 
one  side  may  be  seen  from  a  statement  of  Wellhausen 
that  "'  it  is  not  a  question  whether  there  be  any  post- 
exilic  Psalms,  but,  rather,  whether  the  Psalms  contain 
any  poems  written  before  the  exile.""^ 

In  his  Bampton  Lectures  of  1889  (published  in  1891) 
Cheyne  said  that  ''putting  aside  Psa.  xviii.,  and  possi- 
bly lines  or  verses  imbedded  here  and  there  in  later 
Psalms,  the  Psalter  as  a  whole  is  post-exilic"  (p.  xxxi.). 
In  his  lectures  delivered  in  America  during  the  winter 

*  Polychrome  Bible,  p.  163.  Wellhausen  held  the  same  view  at 
least  as  early  as  1878,  when  he  published  his  edition  of  Bleek's 
"  Einleitung." 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  257 

of  1897-98,'^   this   distinguished  scholar  accepted   the 
view  that  there  are  no  Psahns  of  pre-  exiHc  origin. 

Not  many  years  ago  Ewald  was  the  greatest,  and, 
at  the  time,  among  the  most  radical,  of  modern  critics. 
But  he  assigned  some  fifty-seven  Psalms  to  the  pre- 
exilic  period.  Conservative  as  Driver  usually  is,  he  is 
surprisingly  cautious  in  claiming  a  pre-exilic  origin  for 
anyof  the  Psalms.  The  sixth  edition  of  his  Introduction 
(1897)  shows  few  changes  in  the  dating  of  the  Psalms 
from  the  first  (1891).  He  regards  some  fifteen  as  pre- 
sumably pre-exilic.  He  asserts,  however,  that  **  it 
may  be  affirmed  with  tolerable  confidence  that  very 
few  of  the  Psalms  are  earlier  than  the  seventh  century 
B.C."  Sanday  is  not  much  less  guarded  in  his  opinion  ; 
he  says:  *'  I  cannot  think  that  it  has  been  at  all  proved 
that  there  was  no  psalmody  in  the  first  temple,  .  .  . 
The  plain  inference  that  the  Psalms  addressed  to  a 
king  belong  to  the  times  of  the  monarchy  should  not, 
I  think,  be  resisted."  f  We  find  a  more  conservative 
opinion  in  one  of  the  most  recent  works  on  the  Psalter 
pubUshed  in  Germany  by  Prof.  Baethgen,  of  Greif- 
swald  (second  edition,  1897).  His  opinion,  as  shown 
in  his  summary  of  his  results,  is  that  *'  of  the  150  songs 
of  our  Psalter,  some  thirty  to  forty  would  have  origi- 
nated in  the  time  of  the  monarchy." 

The  earliest   Hebrew  critics,  a  few  centuries  before 

*  "  Jewish  Religious  Life  after  the  Exile,"  1898,  p.  124. 
t  '•  Inspiration":  Bampton  Lectures,  1893,  p.  251. 


258  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

the  Christian  era,  assigned  seventy-three  Psalms  to 
David.  The  general  tendency  for  a  number  of  centu- 
ries after  this  was  to  increase  this  allotment.  Rab- 
binic tradition  assigned  all  the  Psalms  to  David,  and 
this  theory  was  adopted  largely  in  the  Christian 
Church,  so  that  *'  the  Psalms  of  David  "  became  a 
common  title  of  the  Psalter. 

The  purpose  of  the  student  should  be,  not  to 
attempt  to  prove  or  disprove  any  particular  theory  of 
the  origin  of  the  Psalter,  but  to  use  whatever  means 
are  at  hand  for  ascertaining  the  real  date  of  the  vari-. 
ous  Psalms.  As  the  object  of  this  book  is  rather  to 
show  methods  than  results,  first  we  shall  consider  the 
means  at  our  disposal  for  the  determination  of  the 
date  of  the  Psalms,  and  then  apply  those  means  to  a 
few  Psalms  to  show  their  practical  application. 

The  evidence  which  is  available  is  both  internal  and 
external.  The  latter  includes  the  evidence  of  the 
superscriptions  or  headings,  and  the  growth  of  the 
Psalter  in  its  parts  and  as  a  whole. ^  The  internal 
evidence  includes  here,  as  elsewere,  historical  allusions, 
language,  style,  and  ideas.  The  external  evidence  was 
once  a  controlling  factor.  But  the  headings  have 
come  to  be  generally  discredited,  and  this  evidence 
has  fallen  into  disuse,  if  not  into  disrepute.  Of  late, 
however,  one  form  of  the  external  evidence  has  been 

*  The  evidence  from  New  Testament  usage  has  been  considered 
in  Chapter  I.,  p.  ipff. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  259 

revived  again,  chiefly  by  the  more  radical  scholars.  In 
our  treatment  the  external  evidence  will  be  consid- 
ered first. 

The  Psalter  is  now  frequently  denominated  *'  the 
hymn-book  of  the  second  temple."  Reuss  strangely 
calls  it  "  the  hymn-book  of  the  synagogue."*  Those 
critics  who  regard  all  the  Psalms  as  the  product  of  the 
exilic  or  post-exilic  period  lay  considerable  stress  upon 
the  fact  that  the  collection  was  made  for  the  temple  of 
Zerubbabel.  Thus  Wellhausen,  speaking  of  Psa.  xx., 
says  :  '*  It  would  seem  that  this  Psalm  (and,  on  the 
same  grounds,  the  following)  belongs  to  the  days  of  the 
kingdom  of  Judah.  This,  however,  would  remove  the 
two  Psalms  out  of  the  sphere  to  which  the  Psalms,  as 
a  whole,  belong"  (Polychrome  Bible,  p.  171).  This 
method  of  determining  the  date  of  individual  Psalms 
does  not  seem  to  me  wholly  justifiable.  No  matter 
when  the  final  collection  was  made,  no  matter  to  what 
sphere  the  Psalm  Book,  as  a  whole,  belongs,  it  may 
contain  portions  whose  origin  antedated  the  collection 
by  many  centuries.  Moreover,  no  one  knows  better 
than  the  eminent  scholar  quoted  above,  that  the  pres- 
ent collection  of  Psalms  was  the  result  of  a  growth 
which  must  have  continued  a  long  time.f 

*  His  title  is  "  Der  Psalter,  oder  das  Gesangbuch  der  Syna- 
goge." 

t  "  Smend  has  accepted  as  an  axiom,  that  the  Psalter  was  the 
hymn-book  of  the  second  temple.     But  I  venture  to   place  beside 


26o  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

That  the  present  collection  is  made  up  of  a  number 
of  smaller  collections  is  an  important  part  of  the  evi- 
dence for  the  late  date  of  the  whole,  and  this  evidence 
must  be  briefly  reviewed  here.  The  Psalms  are  di- 
vided in  the  Hebrew  Bible  into  five  books.  The  basis 
of  the  division  is  not  wholly  scientific,  but  it  shows 
that  the  Hebrew  editors  realized  that  the  completed 
book  was  made  up  of  previous  smaller  collections. 
The  surest  and  simplest  evidence  of  these  minor  col- 
lections is  in  the  presence  of  duplicates.  It  will  be 
sufficient  to  exhibit  a  single  case  of  duplication.  For 
convenience  of  comparison  the  two  Psalms  are  placed 
side  by  side.  The  points  of  difference  are  indicated  in 
Psa.  liii.  by  the  use  of  italics. 

PSA.  XIV.  PSA.     LIII. 

For  the  liturgy.     Of  David:     For  the  liturgy.      To  the  sickness, 

Maskil  of  David  : 
The  fool  says  in  his  heart,  The  fool  says  in  his  heart, 

There  is  no  God.  There  is  no  God. 

They   have   done   a   corrupt,         They  have  done  a  corrupt  and 
an  abominable  deed  ;  an  abominable  thing  ; 

that,  as  a  second  axiom,  that  the  Psalms  had  been  made  ready  for 
the  use  of  the  community"  (Steckhoven,  quoted  by  Staerk,  "Zeit- 
schrift  fur  die  A.  T.  Wissenschaft,"  1892,  I.,  147).  Sanday  says 
forcibly:  "If  we  admit,  as  we  may  certainly  admit,  that  the 
Psalter  as  we  have  it  was  '  the  song  book  of  the  second  temple,' 
it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  individual  Psalms  were  all  composed 
in  the  period  of  the  second  temple  "  (Bampton  Lectures,  p.  25 1).  See 
also  Robertson,  "  The  Poetry  and  the  Religion  of  the  Psalms." 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W. 


261 


There  is  none  doing  good. 

Jahveh  looked  from  heaven 
upon  the  sons  of  men, 

To  see  if  any  does  wisely, 

If  any  one  is  seeking  God. 

All  have  turned  aside,  are 
wholly  depraved ; 

There  is  none  doing  good,  not 
even  one. 

Do  not  all  the  doers  of  evil 
know — 

Eating  my  people  as  they  eat 
bread, 

And  upon  Jahveh  they  do  not 
call? 

There  were  they  in  great  dis- 
may; 

For  God  is  in  the  righteous 
generation. 

Ye  bring  to  shame  the  pur- 
pose of  the  lowly, 

That  Jahveh  shall  be  his 
refuge. 

Would  that  Israel's  rescue 
were  come  from  Zion. 

When  Jahveh  brings  back  the 
captivity  of  his  people, 

Then  should  Jacob  rejoice  and 
Israel  be  glad. 


There  is  none  doing  good. 

G^^^  looked  from  heaven  upon 
the  sons  of  men. 

To  see  if  any  does  wisely. 

If  any  one  is  seeking  God. 

All  of  ihetn  have  gofie  astray, 
are  wholly  depraved ; 

There  is  none  doing  good,  not 
even  one. 

Do  not  all  the  doers  of  evil 
know — 

Eating  my  people  as  they  eat 
bread. 

And  upon  God  they  do  not 
call  ? 

There  were  they  in  great  dis- 
may, 

Where  there  was  no  dismay. 

For  God  scattered  the  bones  of 
thy  besiegers. 

Thou    broughtest  to   shame, 

For  God  has  cast  them  off. 

Would  that  Israel's  rescue 
were  come  from  Zion. 

When  God  brings  back  the 
captivity  of  his  people. 

Then  should  Jacob  rejoice  and 
Israel  be  glad. 


No  one  can  reasonably  doubt  that  these  are  but  two 
versions  of  the  same  original  poem.     But  some  of  the 


262  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

variations  are  striking  and  suggestive.  One  heading 
has  the  additional  information  of  the  tune"'^  to  which 
the  Psalm  was  to  be  sung,  and  of  the  character  of  the 
poem,  a  maskil,  or  wisdom  song.  In  Psa.  xiv.  we  find 
Jahveh  four  times,  and  God  ('Elohim)  three  times  ; 
in  Psa.  liii.  we  have  God  seven  times,  and  Jahveh  not 
at  all.  If  we  look  more  closely  we  shall  see  that  in 
Psa.  xiv.  Jahveh  is  used  whenever  the  personal  name 
of  the  Deity  is  required.  We  perceive  then  in  these 
variations  the  work  of  two  different  editors,  one  of 
whom  uses  Jahveh  as  the  name  of  the  Deity,  the  other 
God  ;  and  one  of  whom  gives  fuller  information  in  his 
prefatory  note  than  the  other.t 

There  is  but  one  explanation  of  these  facts.  Just  as 
we  find  "  Rock  of  Ages"  in  every  collection  of  Chris- 
tian hymns,  and  as  we  often  find  variant  texts  accord- 
ing to  the  ideas  of  the  editors,  so  this  popular  Hebrew 
song  was  gathered  into  two  different  collections,  each 
made  by  an  editor  who  did  not  scruple  to  modify  the 
original  song  according  to  his  own  taste    and  sense  of 

*  This  is  at  all  events  a  highly  probable  explanation  of  the  'al 
mahalaih. 

t  Of  the  other  variations,  some  are  due  to  textual  corruption, 
others  to  editorial  intention.  These  are  not  material  for  the  pur- 
pose in  hand,  and  are  therefore  passed  by.  It  may  be  well,  how- 
ever, to  emphasize  the  fact  that  wherever  there  are  duplicates  in 
the  Old  Testament — and  the  cases  are  numerous— there  are  many 
variants,  and  the  two  causes  named  above  both  have  to  be  pre- 
supposed ;  see  further  below. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W.  263 

propriety.  There  is  another  fact  which  strengthens 
this  conclusion.  If  we  examine  the  collections  to 
which  each  of  these  Psalms  belongs,  we  find  that  Psa. 
xiv.  is  among  poems  in  which  Jahveh  is  habitually  used 
for  God  ;  while  Psa.  liii.  is  among  those  in  which 
'Elohim  is  employed.*  There  were,  therefore,  Jah- 
vistic  and  Elohistic  editors  whose  labors  are  still  in 
evidence  in  the  completed  Psalm  Book.f 

There  are  several  other  instances  of  duplication.  Psa. 
xl.  13-17  (Book  I.),  reappears  as  a  complete  Psalm  (Psa. 
Ixx.,  Book  II.),  with  a  heading  quite  different  from 
that  of  Psa.  xl.  Three  times  in  Psa.  Ixx.  we  find  'Elo- 
him corresponding  to  Jahveh  in  Psa.  xl.  Also  Psa. 
xxxi.  1-3,  is  the  same  as  Psa.  Ixxi.  1-3.  Psa.  cviii. 
(Book  V.)  is  made  up  of  portions  of  two  Psalms  of 
Book  III.,  Ivii.  7-1 1,  and  Ix.  5-12.  Each  of  these 
Psalms  has  an  elaborate  heading  ;  but  the  editor,  who 
made  a  new  Psalm  by  joining  two  choice  bits  from 
other  poems,  gave  his  production  a  heading  of  its  own, 
though  a  very  simple  one,  viz. :  "A  Song.     A  Psalm 

*  Let  the  reader  take  the  trouble  to  glance  over  (if  indeed  he 
have  not  already  done  so),  the  Psalms  of  Book  I.  (i.-xli.)  to  note 
the  prevalence  of  Jahveh  (Lord  in  the  English  versions),  and  then 
over  Books  IL  and  III.  (xlii.-lxxxix.)  to  see  how  'Elohim  (God  in 
the  English  versions)  predominates.  One  might  read  the  Psalms 
a  long  time  without  discovering  the  meaning  of  this  fact. 

t  In  many  of  these  Psalms  the  divine  name,  whether  Jahveh  or 
'Elohim,  may  represent  the  preference  of  the  author  rather  than 
of  the  editor. 


264  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

of  David."  It  is  plain  from  the  evidence  now  produced 
that  these  headings  are  the  work  of  editors,  and  that 
each  editor  exercised  a  good  deal  of  latitude  in  the 
performance  of  his  task.  The  headings  are  no  part  of 
the  sacred  text,  but  are  introductory  notes,  and  cer- 
tainly there  could  be  no  valid  objection  to  the  liberty 
exercised  by  the  collectors. 

When  these  various  original  collections  were  joined 
together  to  make  our  present  book,  the  Psalms  must 
already  have  become  too  fixed  to  permit  much  further 
editing  ;  otherwise  it  is  not  likely  that  duplicates 
would  have  been  retained.  It  seems  highly  probable, 
therefore,  that  the  Book  of  Psalms  took  on  its  present 
form  at  a  comparatively  late  day,  and  long  after  the 
separate  collections  had  been  made.  This  belief  is 
strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  Jahvistic  and  Elohis- 
tic  editors,  whose  hand  is  so  clearly  traceable  as  collec- 
tors of  Psalms,  belonged  to  different  schools  of  thought 
in  the  Jewish  Church.*  The  bringing  their  productions 
together,  therefore,  indicates  a  step  toward  unity. 

The  comparison  of  the  duplicates  throws  much  light 
on  the  state  of  the  text.  There  are  upwards  of  a  hun- 
dred variations  between  the  Hebrew  texts  of  the  du- 
plicate versions,  Psa.  xviii.  and  II.  Sam.  xxii.,  and  many 
more  in  the  Greek  texts.     If  there  are  so  many  vari- 

*The  meaning  of  the  use  of  these  names  is  discussed  by  Dr.  J. 
P.  Peters,  in  "  The  Development  of  the  Psalter  "  New  World, 
June,  1893. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  265 

ants  where  the  text  could  be  controlled  by  duplicates, 
all  pointing  to  departures  from  the  original  in  one  or 
the  other  version,  or  both,  then  it  is  manifestly  prob- 
able that  there  are  still  more  departures  from  the 
original  text  where  there  was  no  check  at  all. 

The  partial  loss  of  acrostic  forms  is  another  evi- 
dence of  the  changes  which  have  been  made.  Such 
changes  may  have  been  partly  due  to  corruption,  some 
clearly  are  explicable  in  only  this  way  ;  but  others  are 
just  as  certainly  the  work  of  the  editors,  who  did  not 
scruple  to  adapt  a  song  so  as  in  their  judgment  to 
make  it  more  suited  to  the  purpose  in  view.  Sanday 
has  stated  clearly  his  idea  of  this  adaptation  :  *'  The 
fact  that  the  Psalter  was  used  in  the  temple  services 
would  naturally  lead  to  a  certain  amount  of  adapta- 
tion. Many  of  the  Psalms,  we  may  be  sure,  were  not 
originally  written  with  this  object.  Some  modification 
would  be  needed  in  order  to  fit  the  expression  of  pri- 
vate feeling  for  public  worship;  and  we  can  also  well 
believe  that  ideas  and  allusions  which  sounded  archaic 
and  out  of  date  would  be  modernized.  Just  as  in  our 
own  hymn-books  the  form  in  which  the  hymn  is  act- 
ually sung  often  differs  considerably  from  the  original, 
so  also  in  the  Jewish  Church  the  same  thing  would 
take  place,  but  probably  on  a  larger  scale,  because,  as 
we  have  already  said,  all  idea  of  literary  property  and 
of  the  obligations  entailed  by  it  was  absent  "  ("  Inspira- 
tion," p.  195). 


266  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

In  oraer  to  study  the  headings  most  profitably  we 
must  take  up  the  Psalms  by  groups.  The  division  into 
five  books,  as  already  indicated,  is  partly  artificial.  It 
is  easy,  however,  to  separate  the  Psalms  into  three 
parts,  so  that  the  division  has  a  more  logical  basis,  in 
that  each  once  existed  independently.  These  are  :  I., 
i.-xli.  ;  II.,  xlii.-lxxxix. ;  III.,  xc.-cl.  In  these  parts 
there  are  undoubtedly  minor  collections  which  existed 
as  such  before  they  became  part  of  a  larger  collection. 
But  for  our  purpose  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  into  the 
discussion  of  the  smaller  sub-divisions,  the  three  main 
parts  being  the  most  convenient  divisions.  It  is  pro- 
posed both  to  state  the  facts,  and  to  attempt  briefly  to 
show  their  meaning. 

Part  I.  Psalms  i.-xli.  In  the  Hebrew  text  there  are 
but  four  anonymous  Psalms  in  this  part,  i.,  ii.,  x.,  xxxiii. 
Psa.  i,  is  introductory  to  the  whole  book,  Psa.  ii.  is 
closely  allied  to  it  in  date  ;  its  Aramaic  words  betray 
its  lateness,  and  its  Messianic  character  is  so  all-per- 
vading that  its  apparent  historical  background  might 
easily  mislead  ;  at  all  events,  the  final  editor  did  not 
regard  it  as  part  of  the  Davidic  collection,  of  which 
this  part  is  mainly  composed.  Psas.  ix.  and  x.  were 
originally  one*  ;  hence  the  absence  of  a  title  from  x, 

*  The  evidence  of  this  is  conclusive.  In  the  LXX.  these  two 
constitute  a  single  poem.  The  Psalm  v^^as  originally  an  acrostic. 
Put  it  requires  the  two  Psalms  to  get  all  the  letters.  It  is  true 
that  some  of  the  acrostic  letters  are  lacking,  especially  in  the  latter 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  267 

The  lack  of  a  heading-  in  Psa.  xxxiii.  is  attributed  by 
Wellhausen  to  its  late  introduction  in  this  collection. 
Others  have  held  that  this  song  was  originally  a  part 
of  Psa.  xxxii.*  Baethgen  says  that  "very  likely  'to 
David  '  has  fallen  out  [of  the  title]  by  accident  "  (''  Die 
Psalmen,"  p.  92).  The  LXX.  has  the  title  ''  to  David," 
the  Hexaplar  text  adding,  "  without  inscription  by 
the  Hebrews,  and  by  the  three." 

All  the  other  Psalms  of  Part  I.  have  the  heading  "  to 
David,''  t  so  that  this  is  essentially  a  Davidic  collection. 

part.  Enough  survive,  however,  to  show  clearly  the  original  form. 
Wellhausen's  translation  in  the  Polychrome  Bible  shows  which  let- 
ters are  preserved.  In  that  part  in  which  the  acrostic  arrangement 
is  lost,  there  are  clear  traces  of  textual  corruption.  I  have  found 
by  experience  that  the  elementary  student  finds  no  difficulty  in 
reading  this  Psalm  until  he  comes  to  the  corrupt  portion. 

*See  Cheyne,  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  214;  Peters,  New  World, 
June,  1893,  p.  294. 

f  There  is  at  least  reasonable  doubt  whether  the  heading 
/e  davidh  indicates  authorship  or  not.  It  is  rendered  in  the  Eng- 
lish versions  "  of  David  " ;  but  it  means  strictly  to  qx  for  David,  and 
would  most  appropriately  indicate  the  dedication  of  songs  to  the 
poet-king.  But  the  Hebrew  particle  may  indicate  possession,  and  the 
fair  critic  will  give  to  the  conservative  view  the  benefit  of  every  doubt. 

Nevertheless,  the  preposition  cannot  indicate  authorship  in  all 
the  titles,  as,  for  instance,  in  those  "  to  the  sons  of  Korah."  A 
certain  doubt  must,  therefore,  remain  as  to  the  actual  intention  of 
the  editors.  On  this  Vauctoris,  see  further,  Baethgen,  "  Die 
Psalmen,"  p.  vii.;  Driver,  L.  O.  T.^  p.  381  ;  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  A.  T. 
Wissenschaft  1885,  p.  66  f.;  1886,  p.  267. 


268  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

There  are,  besides,  in  the  headings,  other  notes  of  vari- 
ous kinds.  Some  are  of  a  musical  character,  and  thereby 
reveal  their  late  date  ;  others  indicate  the  supposed  his- 
torical occasion  of  the  Psalm,"  the  words  often  bein^ 
taken  from  the  historical  books.  The  earliest  Jewish 
higher  critics  deserve  credit  at  least  for  perceiving  the 
importance  of  knowing  the  historical  setting  of  a  Psalm, 
even  if  they  were  not  very  acute  in  determining  it. 

If  we  turn  now  to  the  Greek  Psalter,  we  find  some 
interesting  variants  in  the  headings.  They  are,  in  fact, 
pretty  numerous,  but  many  are  not  important  in  this 
place.  In  one  Greek  manuscript  Psa.  ii.  has  the  head- 
ing *' to  David";  several  Psalms  which  have  only  '*  to 
David  "  in  the  Hebrew  text,  have  ''  Psalm  to  David  " 
in  the  Greek.  In  some  cases  the  Hexaplar  text,  or  the 
Greek  versions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  or  Theodotion, 
lack  the  note  "  to  David."  In  other  cases  the  Greek 
text  gives  the  occasion  of  the  poem  where  it  is  want- 
ing in  the  Hebrew.  Thus  Psa.  xxiv.  is  "  for  the  Sab- 
bath day";  Psa.  xxvii.  was  to  be  said  "before  anoint- 
ing oneself,"  indicating  a  ritual  use;  Psa.  xxix.,  which 
is  in  reality  a  song  whose  motive  is  a  thunder-storm, 
was  to  be  sung  ''on  going  out  of  the  tabernacle";  in 
Psa.  xxxi.  we  find  "of  a  trance";  in  Psa.  xxxviii.  the 
purpose  is  ^'  for  a  recollection  of  the  Sabbath. "f 

*  There  are  such  historical  notes  to  Pss.  iii.,  vii.,   xviii.,  xxx., 
xxxiv. 
t  The  Hebrew  title, "  a  Psalm  to  David,  to  remember,"  breaks  off 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  269 

From  the  above  survey  of  the  superscriptions  in  the 
first  collection  we  observe  that  the  headings  were  not 
definitely  fixed  by  authority,  but  that  the  editors  used 
a  good  deal  of  freedom.  When  the  Greek  version  was 
made,  not  later  than  100  B.C.,  there  were  still  various 
texts  of  the  Psalms  differing  in  the  titles  as  well  as  in 
the  text ;  for  it  is  not  likely  that  the  Greek  trans- 
lators did  any  editing ;  they  translated,  sometimes 
with  slavish  literalness,  sometimes  with  great  free- 
dom, whatever  was  in  the  Hebrew  text  they  used 
(see  p.  i/^f).  The  Hebrew  text,  which  was  ulti- 
mately adopted  as  the  standard,  and  which  alone 
has  come  down  to  us,  was  more  conservative  in  its 
higher  criticism  than  the  one  employed  by  the  Alex- 
andrian translators.  This  latter  text  contained  many 
additions  of  late  origin.  We  shall  find  additional 
evidence  for  these  conclusions  in  the  further  examina- 
tion of  headings. 

Part  n.  Psalms  xlii.-lxxxix.  In  this  part,  as  in  the 
preceding,  there  are  four  anonymous  Psalms,  according 
to  the  Hebrew  text,  xliii.,  Ixvi.,  Ixvii.,  Ixxi.  Of  these 
xUii.  belongs  to   xlii.,   the   two    being  originally  one 

abruptly,  and  is  manifestly  a  fragment.  The  Greek  title  completes 
the  sense,  but  is  far  from  assigning  an  appropriate  occasion,  ac- 
cording to  the  contents  of  the  poem.  It  may  be,  as  Baethgen, 
among  others,  seems  to  hold,  that  the  Hebrew  title  is  complete,  the 
reference  being  to  the  offering  of  the  askara.  The  askara  was  a 
part  of  the  vegetable  offering  called  the  itiinchah. 


270  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

Psalm.*  Pss.  Ixvi.  and  Ixvii.  have  headingsf  from  \vhich 
the  name  of  the  author  has  dropped  out.  Psa.  Ixxi.  has 
no  heading  at  all  in  Hebrew,  but  in  the  LXX.  has 
this:  **To  David.  Of  the  sons  of  Jonadab,  and  of 
the  first  that  were  taken  captive."  Nineteen  Psalms 
are  assigned  to  David,  the  two  small  groups,  li.-lxv., 
Ixviii.-lxx.,  and  the  dislocated  Ixxxvi.  To  the  sons  of 
KorahJ  are  ascribed  eleven,  viz.:  xlii.  (xliii.),  xliv.-xlix., 
Ixxxiv.,  Ixxxv.,  Ixxxvii.,  Ixxxviii.  To  Asaph  twelve 
are  credited,  viz.:  1.,  Ixxiii.-lxxxiii.  Solomon  is  cred- 
ited with  one,  Ixxii.,  and  Ethan  the  Ezrahite  with 
one,  Ixxxix. 

There  are,  therefore,  three  minor  collections  which 
make  up  this  part,  a  Davidic,  a  Korahitic,  and  an 
Asaphic.     When    these    were   combined,  the  original 

*  Psa.  xliii. ,  in  the  present  arrangement,  is  the  third  strophe  of  the 
poem,  Psa.  xlii.  containing  the  first  two  strophes.  Each  of  these 
three  strophes  ends  with  the  same  refrain  (see  xlii.  5,  ii;  xliii.  5). 
The  subject,  language  and  style  show  the  unity  of  the  Psalm,  as 
well  as  the  form.  Dr.  Peters  supposes  xliii.  to  be  a  later  addition 
to  the  original  Psalm  {New  lVor/d,]une,  1893). 

t"For  the  liturgy.  A  song.  A  Psalm '' (Ixvi).  "For  the  lit- 
urgy.    With  stringed  instruments.     A  Psalm.     A  song  "  (Ixvii.). 

:}:"Korah  and  Asaph  are  not  Psalmists,  but  families  or  guilds  of  the 
temple-singers.  Hence  the  Psalms  may  have  been  attributed  to 
them  originally  in  just  the  same  way  that  many  German  hymns 
are  attributed  to  the  Moravian  Brethren :  they  belonged  origi- 
nally to  a  private  collection,  and  subsequently  found  their  way  into 
the  common  Hymn  Book  "  (Wellhausen,  Polychrome  Bible,  p.  182). 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  271 

collections  were  somewhat  broken  up  ;  a  Davidic 
Psalm  (Ixxxvi.)  was  placed  in  the  midst  of  a  Korah- 
itic  collection,  and  one  Asaphic  Psalm  became  dis- 
joined and  was  placed  between  Korahitic  and  Davidic 
groups.  It  is  very  likely  that  the  two  groups  of  Ko- 
rahitic and  of  Davidic  Psalms  which  we  find  here  once 
constituted  independent  collections,  the  present  mix- 
ing up  being  due  to  the  editor  who  joined  the  three 
collections  into  one.  That  the  original  collections 
had  little  meaning  for  the  later  Jewish  editors  is 
clearly  seen  from  the  fact  that  some  Greek  manu- 
scripts ascribe  several  of  the  Korahitic  Psalms  to 
David.*  The  desire  of  the  late  Jews  to  make  David 
the  author  of  as  many  Psalms  as  possible  is  clearly 
seen  in  the  Greek  headings. 

Another  important  fact  to  be  noted  here  is  the  sub- 
scription or  colophon  to  Psa.  Ixxii.,  *'  the  prayers  of 
David  the  son  of  Jesse  are  ended."  In  Part  II,  there 
is  but  one  Davidic  Psalm  following  this  (Ixxxvi.);  but 
of  the  two  immediately  preceding,  one  is  assigned  to 
Solomon  and  the  other  is  anonymous.  It  is  manifest 
that  this  subscription  must  originally  have  stood  at 
the  end  of  an  exclusive  Davidic  collection,  which  must 
have  existed  independently  before  incorporation  with 
others.  Why  then  were  these  words  transferred  to 
tlie  end  of  a  Psalm  attributed  to   Solomon?     Cheyne 

*  Codex  Alex,  ascribes  xlii.,  xliii ,  xlv.-xlvii.,  1.  to  David;  Codex 
Sin.  ascribes  Ixxix.  to  David. 


272  THE   OLD    TESTAMENT  FROM 

explains  it  as  a  clerical  error,  "  Psa.  Ixxii.  being  a  late 
appendix  to  the  Davidic  hymn  book  "  ('*  Bampton  Lec- 
tures," p.  8).  Whether  this  explanation  is  sufficient  or 
not,  it  is  not  easy  to  say ;  but  the  fact  shows  conclu- 
sively that  editors,  or  it  may  be  scribes,  were  careless 
about  consistency. 

A  historical  occasion  is  given  for  an  unusual  number 
of  Psalms  in  this  part,  viz.,  li.,  Hi.,  liv.,  Ivi.,  Ivii.,  lix., 
Ix.,  Ixiii.  The  Greek  version  used  in  Origen's  "  Hex- 
apla  "  lacks  these  historical  notes.  The  LXX.,  on  the 
other  hand,  adds  to  the  title  of  Ixxvi.  and  Ixxx.  "  con- 
cerning the  Assyrians,"  and  presents  a  number  of  other 
variants  of  more  or  less  importance.  Psa.  Ixxxviii.,  as 
already  stated  (p.  1 1),  preserves  even  in  the  Hebrew 
text  a  double  line  of  tradition,  assigning  the  Psalm 
both  to  the  sons  of  Korah  and  to  Heman  the  Ezrahite. 
In  like  manner  Psa.  xxxix.  has,  along  with  the  Davidic 
title,  **to  Jeduthun.*'  Jeduthun  was  the  head  of  a  guild 
of  singers'^,  and  he  appears  to  be  the  same  person  as 
Ethan, t  who  is  named  as  the  author  of  Psa.  Ixxxix. 

Part  III.  Psalms  xc.-cl.  The  third  part  is  character- 
ized by  the  large  number  of  anonymous  Psalms.  In 
the  more  conservative  Hebrew  text  the  following  are 
"  orphaned,"  as  the  Jews  called  those  which  have  no 
author  assigned   to  them  :    Pss.  xci.-c,  cii.,  civ.-cvii., 

*See  I.  Chron.  xvi.  42  ;  xxv.  i,  3  ;  II.  Chron,  xxxv.  15. 
t  See  Baethgen,  "  Die  Psalmen,"  p.  ix. ;  Bertheau  on  I,  Chron., 
vi.  29. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  273 

cxi.-cxxi.,  cxxiii.,cxxv.,cxxvi.,  cxxviii.-cxxx.,cxxxii., 
cxxxiv.-cxxxvii.,  cxlvi.-cl.,  forty-two  in  all.  Authors 
are  assigned  to  several  of  these  in  the  more  venture- 
some Greek  text,  as  we  shall  see  below.  The  Hebrew 
text  ascribes  these  seventeen  to  David  :  Pss.  ci.,  ciii., 
cviii.-cx.,  cxxii.,"^  cxxiv.,  cxxxi.,  cxxxiii.,  cxxxviii.- 
cxlv.  The  Greek  text  adds  ten  to  the  Davidic  Psalms: 
Pss.  xci.,  xciii.-xcix.,  civ.,  cxxxvii.  This  version  as- 
signs cxlvi.-cxlviii.  to  Haggai  and  Zechariah.f  In  the 
Codex  Alexandrinus  and  in  the  Hexaplar  text,  and 
in  some  MSS.  of  the  LXX.,  Psa.  cxxxviii.  is  ascribed 
to  Zechariah  as  well  as  to  David,  and  the  Hexaplar 
text  ascribes  cxxxvii.  to  Jeremiah  as  well  as  to  David. 
The  Hebrew  text  assigns  Psa.  xc.  to  Moses,  and  Psa. 
cxxvii.  to  Solomon. J 

There  are  two  groups  of  Psalms  in  this  part  which 
require  mention.  Psas.  cxx.-cxxxiv.  all  have  the  head- 
ing'' song  of  the  goings  up."  Various  explanations 
of  the  "  goings  up"  have  been  given,  the  most  probable 
referring  the  term  to  the  pilgrimages  to  the  holy  city. 
If  this  is  the  right  explanation,  the  pilgrim  Psalter 
could  not  possibly  be  the  production  of  David  or  of 

*  Several  Greek  MSS,  lack  the  title  "to  David  "  in  cxxii.,  cxxiv., 
cxxxi.,  cxxxiii. 

t  Psa.  cxlvii.  is  divided  into  two  Psalms  in  the  LXX.,  and  each  part 
is  assigned  to  the  joint  authorship  of  these  two  post-exilic  prophets. 
Conversely  Pss.  cxiv.  and  cxv.  are  combined  into  one  in  the  LXX. 

X  The  name  of  Solomon  is  lacking  in  the  chief  Greek  MSS. 


274  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

Solomon.  The  correct  title  of  a  single  poem  would  be 
**a  song  of  the  going  up."  The  plural  suggests  that 
the  original  title  was  "songs  of  the  goings  up."  This 
would  apply  to  the  whole  collection,  and  would  be 
used  as  a  single  title  for  the  whole.  When  the  collec- 
tion of  the  songs  of  the  pilgrimages  was  incorporated 
in  the  larger  collection,  the  title  of  the  whole  was  af- 
fixed to  each  Psalms  to  preserve  its  identity.  This  would 
explain  the  preservation  of  the  plural  "goings."* 

There  is  another  group  made  up  of  hallelujah  songs, 
cvi.,  cxi,-cxiii.,  cxxxv.,  cxlvi.-cL;  to  these  the  LXX, 
adds,  cv.,  cvii.,  cxiv,-cxix.  These  are,  for  the  most 
part,  songs  of  praise  in  a  high  strain.  But  the  title  is, 
to  say  the  least,  not  equally  applicable  to  all  of  them 
(see  Cheyne,  **  Hampton  Lectures,"  p.  49fTf.), 

We  note  further  the  general  absence  of  historical 
notes  to  the  Psalms  in  this  part.  The  Hebrew  text 
contains  such  a  note  only  for  Psa.  cxlii.;  the  Greek  text 
also  for  xcvi.,  xcvii.,  cxliii.,  cxliv.  The  hturgical 
direction  is  given  for  Psa.  xcii.,  **  for  the  Sabbath 
day";  Psa.  c.  is  called  "a  Psalm  of  thanksgiving," 
and  Psa.  cii.  **  a  prayer  for  the  afflicted  when  he  is 
helpless."  The  LXX,  informs  us  that  Psa.  xciii.  was  to 
be  sung  "  on  the  day  before  the  Sabbath,"  and  Psa. 
xciv,  "  for  the  fourth  day  of  the  week." 

*See  O.  T.  J.  C.^  p.  203;  Sanday,  "Inspiration,"  p.  194; 
Cheyne,  "  Bampton  Lectures,"  p.  59;  Baethgen,  "Die  Psalmen," 
p.  XX. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  275 

In  this  part  more  than  in  the  second,  as  in  the  second 
more  than  in  the  first,  the  original  groups  were  broken 
up  by  the  compiler,  making  it  easily  possible  for  late 
Psalms  to  be  interspersed  with  earlier  ones.  There  is 
in  this  part  still  more  divergence  between  the  Hebrew 
and  the  various  Greek  texts,  a  fact  which  shows  that 
we  have  not  only  to  consider  the  history  of  the  Psalm 
Book,  but  of  the  various  parts  of  which  it  is  composed. 
The  LXX.  having,  as  we  have  seen,  a  slightly  different 
arrangement  of  the  numbers,  comes  to  the  end  of  the 
Psalter  lacking  one  of  the  requisite  150.  To  supply 
this  deficiency  it  was  compelled  to  add  a  Psalm  of  un- 
certain origin,  and  of  little  value,  to  which  the  heading 
is  prefixed:  "  This  is  an  idiographic  Psalm  to  David 
(and  it  is  beyond  the  number),  when  he  fought  in  sin- 
gle combat  with  Goliath."  The  Septuagint  text,  es- 
pecially in  some  of  the  MSS.,  claims  several  Psalms 
for  David  beyond  those  ascribed  to  him  in  the  Hebrew. 
The  Jews  did  not  reach  an  agreement  about  this  mat- 
ter in  the  pre-Christian  period,  the  Greek-speaking 
Jews  adhering  to  the  Greek  version,  others  to  the  He- 
brew. If,  therefore,  one  is  disposed  to  accept  the 
headings  on  the  ground  of  the  authority  of  our  Lord 
and  of  His  Apostles,  he  should  not  be  content,  as  is 
usually  the  case,  with  the  more  conservative  Hebrew 
text,  but  should  claim  for  David  all  those  given  by  the 
Greek,*  since  this  was  the  version  generally  supposed  to 

*  Some  idea  of  the  value  of  these  titles  may  be  had  from  noting 


276  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

have  been  used  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles.  There  is 
no  unanimously  received  tradition  of  the  early  criti- 
cism of  the  Psalter.  The  headings  represent  the  criti- 
cal conjectures  of  the  Jews  of  the  post-exilic  period, 
the  conjectures  becoming  more  extravagant  up  to  a 
certain  point,  and  then  becoming  more  conservative  ; 
therefore,  it  is  impossible  to  claim  any  authority  for 
them.  Their  worth  must  be  tested  in  every  case  by 
determining  the  actual  value  of  the  opinion  therein 
expressed. 

The  array  of  facts  given  above  must  at  least  par- 
tially answer  the  question  what  these  opinions  are 
worth.  There  is  further  evidence  that  the  titles  in 
many  cases  are  a  growth,  the  result  of  successive  edit- 
ing. This  is  readily  seen  from  the  variety  of  expres- 
sion. The  ordinary  order  is  Psalm,  maskil,  or  viiktam, 
to  David.  The  order  often  changes  to  to  David,  a 
Psalm.  Often  we  find  the  duplicates  a  Psalm,  a  song ; 
or  reversed,  a  song,  a  Psalm.  In  such  cases  the  second 
part  is  plainly  an  addition  to  the  simple  original  title. 
The  varying  order  may  sometimes  be  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  title  of  a  whole  group  was  given  to  each 
Psalm  when  it  was  broken  up  and  placed  in  the  larger 
collection.  This  title  would  naturally  be  placed  at 
the  end  of  such  notes  as  already  constituted  headings. 
Still  others  might  be  subsequently  added. 

the  inconsistency  in  the  Greek  heading  to  Psa.  xcvi. :  "  When  the 
house  was  built  after  the  captivity.     A  song  of  David." 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  277 

But  to  determine  conclusively  the  value  of  the  Jew- 
ish criticism  preserved  in  these  titles,  there  are  two 
questions  which  need  to  be  answered:  Upon  what 
ground  are  these  opinions  based  ?  and,  How  far  do  they 
agree  with  the  contents  of  the  Psalms?  It  is  quite 
possible  to  find  the  answers  to  these  questions  in  the 
headings  themselves.  The  principle  of  one's  work  is 
usually  traceable  in  the  work  itself. 

It  is  sometimes  clear  that  the  opinion  expressed  in 
the  title  is  based  purely  upon  the  internal  evidence, 
that  is,  upon  the  contents  of  the  Psalms.  Now  it  is 
clear  that  it  is  not  possible  to  lay  much  stress  upon 
external  evidence,  however  ancient  from  our  stand- 
point, if  it  in  turn  is  based  solely  upon  internal  evidence. 
For  we  have  the  same  internal  evidence  ourselves,  and 
are  much  better  qualified  to  use  it  scientifically  than 
the  post-exilic  Jews.  It  is,  for  example,  particularly 
easy  to  see  why  the  two  Psalms  are  ascribed  to  Solo- 
mon. 

Psalm  Ixxii.  begins : 

*•  O  God,  give  thy  justice  to  the  king, 

And  thy  righteousness  to  the  king's  son. 

He  will  judge  thy  people  with  righteousness, 

And  thy  afflicted  with  justice." 

Who  was  the  King's  Son  par  excellence  but  the  son 
of  the  great  David?  Who  was  the  famous  judge  upon 
the  throne  of  Israel  but  Solomon  the  wise  }  There  is 
little  else  in  the  poem  that  is  appropriate  to  Solomon. 


27^  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

It  is  Messianic  throughout.  The  ideal  king  is  the  real 
subject  of  the  poet's  thought.  Moreover,  the  king  is  not 
the  speaker,  but  the  subject  of  the  poem,  and  so  it  could 
not  have  been  written  by  any  king.  The  most  that  can 
be  claimed  is  that  the  Psalm  was  dedicated  to  Solomon. 
Psalm  cxxvii.  begins  : 

"  If  Jahveh  build  not  the  house, 

Its  builders  labor  thereon  in  vain. 

If  Jahveh  watch  not  the  city, 

Its  watchman  is  awake  in  vain." 

There  seemed  to  the  Jewish  editor  no  one  who  could 
be  this  builder  but  Solomon.  But  the  rest  of  the  Psalm 
shows  us  clearly  the  post-exilic  Jerusalem,  and  there- 
fore *'  the  house  "  is  the  second  temple. 

A  good  test  of  the  worth  of  the  superscriptions  may  be 
had  by  the  examination  of  those  which  have  historical 
notes  purporting  to  give  their  occasion.  A  few  specimens 
of  these  will  be  considered.  The  occasion  of  Psa.  iii.  is 
said  to  be  "'  when  he  fled  from  Absalom  his  son."  But 
the  enemies  who  are  smitten  by  Jehovah  are  foreigners, 
and  the  singer  rejoices  in  their  downfall  ;  whereas 
David  mourned  so  over  Absalom's  loss  that  Joab 
sharply  rebuked  him  (II.  Sam.  xviii.  SSfif.)-  The  subject 
of  Psa.  vii.  is  "  concerning  the  words  of  Cush  a  Benja- 
mite."*    We  do  not  know  anything  about   this  Cush, 

*  The  Targum  substitutes  for  Cush  the  Benjamite  "  Saul  the 
son  of  Kish,  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin."  The  Greek  texts  and  the 
Vulgate  read,  '*  Cushi  the  son  of  Jemeni." 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W.  279 

and  therefore  cannot  control  the  statement.  This, 
however,  does  not  prove  that  it  is  correct.  Psa.  xviii. 
is  said  to  have  been  sung  *'  on  the  day  when  Jahveh 
delivered  him  from  the  hand  of  all  his  enemies,  and 
from  the  hand  of  Saul."'^  If  one  reads  this  Psalm  care- 
fully, it  will  be  perfectly  clear  that  the  deliverance  for 
which  Jehovah  is  praised  happened  in  one  particular 
battle,  where  the  hero  was  hard  pressed,  and  where 
Jehovah  came  to  his  rescue  in  a  storm.  The  heading 
implies  that  the  song  was  a  general  one,  commemora- 
tive of  dehverance  in  a  long  series  of  wars.  One  feels 
such  an  incongruity  in  coupling  Saul  with**  all  his 
enemies,"  that,  all  the  more  if  he  held  to  the  Davidic 
authorship,  he  would  believe  that  the  clause,  '*  and 
from  the  hand  of  Saul,"  must  be  a  later  addition.  The 
last  verse,  moreover,  shows  that  David  could  not  have 
been  the  author  ;  for  the  poet  ends  his  song: 
"  Making  great  deliverance  for  his  king, 

And  showing  mercy  to  his  anointed  ; 

To  David  and  to  his  seed  forever." 
A  descendant  ot  the  Davidic  house  must  be  the  sub- 
ject of  this  poem.  Nor  is  the  evidence  for  the  Davidic 
authorship  materially  strengthened  by  the  presence  of 
this  song  in  the  history  of  David  (II.  Sam.  xxii.) ;  for 
the  last  chapters  of  II.  Samuel  are  appendices  added 
long  after  the  history  of  David's  times  was  composed. 

*  This  historical  note   is  wanting  in  the  Hexaplar  text,  and  in 
the  versions  of  Aquila  and  Symmachus. 


28o  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

Psalm  xxxiv.  commemorates  the  time  when  David 
**  distorted  his  sense  before  Abimelech,  and  he  drove 
him  out,  and  he  went  away."  This  statement  is  bor- 
rowed from  I.  Sam.  xxi.  12,  where,  alone,  we  find  the 
unusual  words,  literally  rendered,  **  distorted  his  sense." 
But  the  Gittite  king  who  drove  David  away  was  Achish, 
not  Abimelech.*  There  is  nothing  whatever  in  the 
Psalm  suitable  to  this  occasion.  The  poem  dwells 
upon  the  favor  which  Jehovah  shows  to  the  right- 
eous, and  the  sure  downfall  of  the  wicked.  The  poem 
is,  further,  an  acrostic,  each  verse  beginning  with 
a  letter  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet;  that  fact,  as  well  as 
the  theology,  suggests  that  the  Psalm  is  a  late  one. 

The  reader  has  now  before  him,  at  all  events,  full 
specimens  of  the  evidence  which  has  caused  all  modern 
critics  to  discredit  the  testimony  furnished  in  these 
headings.  Those  who  prefixed  them  to  the  Psalms  do 
not  appear  to  have  had  any  good  evidence  on  which  to 
base  conclusions.  If  one  still  adheres  to  them  as  an 
authority,  to  be  held  at  least  until  another  is  found,  he 
must,  nevertheless,  respect  the  position  of  those  who 
hold  that  they  have  no  value  save  as  specimens  of  the 
critical  conjectures  of  an  uncritical  age.  Nor  must  he 
charge   modern   critics  with    seeking   out    destructive 

*It  is  held  by  some  that  "Abimelech"  is  a  title  of  Philistine 
kings,  like  Pharaoh  or  Cassar.  But,  as  Baethgen  has  pointed  out, 
"Abimelech"  (Melech  or  Moloch  is  my  father)  is  "a  pure  proper 

name." 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  281 

conclusions  without  regard  to  evidence,  whereas  evi- 
dence is  just  the  thing,  even  if  almost  the  only  thing, 
which  the  modern  critic  is  ready  to  heed.  The  estima- 
tion of  the  Psalm  titles  by  modern  scholars  may  be  seen 
from  a  very  few  extracts.  Wellhausen  says:  "  It  is  now 
commonly  recognized  that  the  historicil  notices  given 
in  the  titles  do  not  contain  genuine  traditions"  (Poly- 
chrome Bible,  p.  163).  *'  It  is  clear  that  [the  historical 
notices]  are  the  fruit  of  the  learned  study  of  a  younger 
age,  which  turned  its  industry  upon  the  old  national 
literature.  .  .  .  These  historical  notices  in  the  super- 
scriptions are  very  untrustworthy."*  "  But  if  the  state- 
ments concerning  the  authors  are  so  late,  then  in  that 
case  they  have  no  critical  value"  (Baethgen).  *' It  is 
now  generally  agreed  that  the  headings  which  have 
come  down  to  us  are  of  very  little  direct  value.  But 
indirectly  their  value  may  be  considerable.  In  con- 
junction with  other  data  they  may  enable  us  to  deter- 
mine the  succession  of  the  different  parts  of  the  Psalter. 
They  may  give  us  a  clue  to  the  date  of  the  editorial 
processes  to  which  both  whole  and  parts  have  been 
subject  "  (Sanday,  "  Inspiration,"  p.  194).  "  The  strong- 
est reasons  exist  for  supposing  that  the  historical 
notices  are  of  late  origin  likewise,  and  though  they 
may  embody  trustworthy  information  respecting  the 
source  or  collection  whence  the  Psalms  w^ere  derived 
by  one  of  the  compilers  of  the  book,  that  they  contain 
*  Reuss,  "  Das  Alte  Testament,"  v.  39,  41. 


282  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

no  authentic  tradition  respecting  the  authorship  of  the 
Psalms,  or  the  occasion  on  which  they  were  composed" 
(Driver,  L.  O.  T.^,  p.  374). 

Before  taking  up  the  internal  evidence  formally  it 
may  be  well  to  remark  briefly  on  a  delicate  question 
which  will  not  yet  down  for  the  mass  of  Christian  peo- 
ple, even  if  it  has  for  the  critical  student — Are  there  any 
Davidic  Psalms  ?  I  can  only  say  frankly  that  I  am  un- 
able to  answer  Yes,  and  am  not,  with  my  present  light, 
willing  to  answer  No.  My  reluctance  is  not  due  to 
hesitation  to  accept  the  demonstrated  results  of  criti- 
cism, but  to  my  uncertainty  whether  there  may  not  be 
Davidic  Psalms,  or  at  all  events  fragments  of  Davidic 
Psalms,  in  the  collection  which  the  later  ages  looked 
upon  as  so  surely  a  production  of  the  Bethlehemite  king. 

There  are  several  points  that  must  be  taken  into 
account  in  the  forming  of  an  opinion.  The  earliest 
germane  testimony  that  we  have  is  in  Amos  vi.  5, 
'*  Like  David  they  devise  for  themselves  instruments 
of  music."  This  shows  that  David  was  famed  as  an  in- 
ventor of  musical  instruments  ;  but  it  is  secular  music, 
and  not  music  of  a  godly  kind,  which  is  referred  to  by  the 
prophet.*    Moreover,  the  devising  of  these  instruments 

*  Robertson  calls  this  interpretation  the  result  of  "a  strangely 
perverted  ingenuity  of  exegesis"  ("Poetry  and  Religion  of  the 
Psalms,"  p.  108).  I  have  read  his  book  while  my  own  was  going 
through  the  press ;  but  I  cannot  see  anything  in  his  argument  to 
justify  a  change  in  the  statement  above. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  283 

is  mentioned  as  a  reproach  for  the  idle  and  luxurious 
Samaritans.  Further,  ancient  testimony  shows  that 
David  was  a  skilled  player,  but  says  nothing"  about  his 
singing  or  composing  (I.  Sam.  xvi.  18).  Saul's  evil 
spirit  was  charmed  away,  not  by  David's  songs,  but  by 
his  playing  on  the  harp  {ib.^  v.  23).  Nevertheless, 
David  was  a  poet.  There  are  preserved  in  the  books 
of  Samuel  two  poems  which  are,  beyond  reasonable 
doubt,  Davidic.  These  are  the  lament  over  Saul  and 
Jonathan  (II.  Sam.  i.  19-27),  taken  from  the  Book  of 
Jashar,  and  the  brief  lament  over  Abner  (ib.,  iii.  33f.). 
There  is  another  which  may  be  David's,  *'  the  last 
words  of  David"  (zA,  xxiii.  1-7),  though  the  evidence 
is  not  so  good  for  a  poem  contained  in  a  late  appendix. 
We  have,  therefore,  early  testimony  to  the  fact  that 
David  was  (i)  an  inventor  of  musical  instruments,  (2) 
a  skilful  player  on  the  harp,  (3)  and  a  poet ;  why  then 
not  a  Psalmist?  Certainly  there  are  a  priori  prohsihili' 
ties  that  this  famous  king  was  the  author  of  at  least 
some  of  the  splendid  lyrics  which  the  post-exilic  age  so 
freely  credited  to  him. 

But  there  are  two  chief  obstacles  which  stand  firmly 
in  the  way  of  the  hopes  these  facts  may  raise.  The  Da- 
vidic poetry  in  Samuel  is  altogether  unlike  the  poetry 
in   the    Psalms."^     The   lament    over    Saul  and  Jona- 

*  No  stress  need  here  be  laid  upon  the  fact  that  the  "  Davidic  " 
poems  in  the  Psalter  are  of  every  variety  of  subject,  style,  lan- 
guage, theology,  etc. 


284  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT. 

than  offered  a  fine  opportunity  for  the  expression  of 
religious  emotion,  but  the  poem  expresses  only  human 
feelings.  The  assured  Davidic  poetry  corresponds  to 
his  musical  instruments  in  its  secular  character.  This 
is  the  more  remarkable  because  David  was  intensely 
religious.  It  is  true  that  David  is  called  in  II.  Sam. 
xxiii.  i:  **  The  sweet  Psalmist  of  Israel  "  ;  but  the  pas- 
sage is  more  obscure  in  the  original  than  appears  in  the 
English.  The  above  rendering  (R.  V.)  is  scarcely 
possible;  we  might  translate,  "Lovely  in  the  praise- 
songs  of  Israel,"  or  "  Lovely  playing  of  Israel."  The 
LXX  renders,  "The  goodly  Psalms  of  Israel."  These 
words,  by  the  way,  testify  against  the  Davidicauthor- 
ship  of  this  poem. 

Then,  again,  it  is  difficult,  with  any  degree  of  confi- 
dence, to  assign  the  individual  Psalms  to  David  ;  for 
the  internal  evidence  rarely  agrees  with  his  date  or  his 
Hfe.  Ewald  assigned  about  a  dozen  Psalms,  or  parts 
of  Psalms,  to  David  ;  but  since  his  day  the  tendency  of 
critical  opinion  has  steadily  been  growing  less  favora- 
ble to  the  theory  of  Davidic  authorship. 


CHAPTER  X. 


Z\)c  l&ooU  of  pealme. 

2.    THE   INTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 

WE  have  seen  that  the  external  evidence  for 
the  determination  of  the  date  of  the  Psalms 
does  not  offer  much  effective  help.  The 
view  of  some  critical  scholars,  that  since  the  Psalter 
was  the  hymn  book  of  the  second  temple,  the  Psalms 
cannot  belong  to  an  earlier  period  than  the  exile,  has 
not  seemed  justified.  On  the  other  hand,  there  do  not 
seem  to  be  good  grounds  for  placing  much  confidence 
in  the  late  traditions  or  conjectures  found  in  the  super- 
scriptions. There  is  left,  therefore,  only  the  internal 
evidence  as  our  main  reHance. 

But  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  internal  evidence 
is  a  delicate  instrument,  and,  in  incompetent  or  rash 
hands,  it  is  liable  to  great  abuse.  In  the  hands  of  the 
judicious  expert,  however,  a  great  deal  of  solid  work 
may  be  accomplished  with  it. 

In  this  book  but  little  use  can  be  made  of  the  evi- 
dence from  language  and  style.  Knowledge  of  the 
Hebrew  tongue  is  essential  to  judge  competently  of  that 


286  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

evidence.  The  linguistic  expert  must  decide  whether 
words  and  idioms  are  early  or  late  ;  for  they  all  look 
alike  in  a  translation.  Style  is  not  altogether  lost  in 
translating  ;  but  it  is  so  seriously  modified  that  its 
evidential  value  is  greatly  impaired.  To  furnish  evi- 
dence appreciable  to  the  reader  who  is  not  a  Hebrew 
scholar,  dependence  must  be  placed  chiefly  upon  his- 
torical allusions  and  theology  ;  and  these,  in  fact,  con- 
stitute the  most  important  evidence  for  any  one. 

In  the  case  of  the  prophets,  historical  allusions  are 
helps  which  rarely  fail  ;  for  the  prophets  were  greatly 
concerned  with  the  state  of  the  nation  in  their  day.  In 
some  Psalms  also  we  find  a  connection  with  the  times 
which  solves  the  problem  of  date.  In  many  cases, 
however,  the  Psalms  are  of  a  lyric  character,  and  the 
writer  makes  no  allusion  to  his  times,  at  least  none 
which  helps  us.  So  often  the  sacred  poem  is  the  out- 
pouring of  the  deep  emotions  of  a  struggling  human 
soul,  and  the  words  are  equally  applicable  to  almost 
any  period.  This  quality  of  the  Psalms  greatly  hinders 
the  critical  determination  of  dates,  but  it  has  made  the 
Psalm  book  the  inexhaustible  source  of  comfort  for 
all  souls  in  all  ages.  No  matter  what  our  need  or  our 
mood,  it  is  not  difficult  to  find  a  voice  for  its  expres- 
sion in  this  priceless  collection  of  religious  poetry. 

The  religious  ideas,  in  which  the  Psalms  so  richly 
abound,  must  always  be  reckoned  with.  But  God  has 
not  always  put  ideas  into  the  souls  of  men  in  an  or- 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF   VIE  W.  287 

derly  development,  and  it  is  easy  to  be  over-confident 
in  dating  on  such  a  basis.  Ideas  belong  to  eternity, 
not  to  time.  On  the  other  hand,  every  age  is  char- 
acterized by  the  peculiar  way  in  which  it  expresses 
its  ideas,  by  the  effect  which  certain  ideas  produce, 
or  by  the  emphasis  which  it  lays  upon  those  ideas 
which  appeal  to  it  most  strongly. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  the  value  of  the  in- 
ternal evidence,  and  the  necessary  caution  in  employ- 
ing it.  The  mistake  which  some  famous  Biblical 
scholars  are  making  to-day  appears  to  be  due  to  press- 
ing unduly  the  meagre  evidence  derived  from  the 
contents  of  the  sacred  writings.  The  internal  evidence 
utterly  fails  to  support  the  Davidic  authorship  of  the 
Psalms,  but  this  may  be  due  to  the  defective  charac- 
ter of  the  evidence.*  The  aim  of  the  present  chapter 
is,  however,  positive  results.  It  is  proposed  to  exam- 
ine the  internal  evidence  by  which  certain  Psalms  may 
reasonably  be  assigned  to  the  pre-exilic  period,  some 
to  the  Maccabean  period,  and  others  to  the  period 
between  these  wide  limits.  No  attempt  can  be  made 
to  examine  all  the  Psalms  which  presumably  belong 
to  any  of  these  periods.  For  the  pre-exilic  period, 
we  shall  study  two  small  groups  of  Psalms,  in  one  of 
which  the  evidence  is  chiefly  historical  conditions,  in 
the  other  religious  ideas. 

*  There  may  be  Davidic  Psalms  which  have  been  worked  over, 
or  added  to,  so  that  the  evidence  in  the  original  is  lost . 


288  THE    OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

I.  The  first  group  will  be  Psas.  xx.,  xxi.,  and  xlv., 
all  referring  to  a  king.*  We  must  bear  in  mind  that 
reference  to  a  king  is  not  a  sure  indication  of  the 
pre-exilic  origin  of  a  Psalm.  The  "anointed"  may  be 
the  people  viewed  as  the  holy  nation  of  Jehovah,  or  it 
may  be  the  individual  Messiah,  and  therefore  does  not 
presuppose  the  monarchy  as  an  existing  institution.  In 
every  case  we  must  decide  whether  the  king  is  one 
actually  sitting  on  the  throne  when  the  Psalm  was 
written,  or  whether  the  poet  idealizes  from  conditions 
of  the  past.  The  king  seems  to  be  real  in  the  three 
Psalms  we  have  chosen  for  investigation. 

I.  Psalm  XX.  The  Psalmist  begins  his  prayer  : 

'*  May  Jahveh  answer  thee  in  the  day  of  distress, 
May  the  name  of  Jacob's  God  support  thee  ; 
May  he  send  thee  aid  from  his  sanctuary, 
And  from  Zion  may  he  give  thee  relief  "  (vs.  i,  2). 

This  is  evidently  a   prayer  addressed  to  the  person 
for  whom  divine  aid  is  sought.    That  the  person  prayed 
for  is  a  king  appears  from  the  following  lines  : 
"  Now  I  know  that  Jahveh  saves  his  anointed ; 
He  will  answer  from  his  holy  heavens. 
O  Jahveh,  save  thou  the  king  ; 
Yea.  answer  us  on  the  day  we  call  "  f  (vs.  6,  9). 

*The  others  referring  to  the  monarchy  are  ii.,  xviii.,  xxviii.,  Ixi., 
Ixiii.,  and  Ixxii.,  and  most  of  these  are  probably  pre-exilic.  The 
evidence  is  much  stronger,  however,  in  some  cases  than  in  others. 

\  This  verse  is  rendered  according  to  the  LXX.,  which  involves 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  289 

The  king-  addressed  could  not  possibly  be  the  au- 
thor. The  occasion  is  clear.  The  king  is  about  to 
send  his  forces  to  the  wars.  Appropriate  sacrifices 
and  prayers  have  been  offered. 

"  May  he  remember  all  thy  offerings, 
May  he  esteem  fat  thy  burnt  sacrifice. 
May  he  fulfil  all  thy  requests  "  (vs.  3,  5). 

Jehovah  is  asked  to  send  help  from  His  sanctuary  on 
Zion  ;  hence  the  Psalm  could  not  be  earlier  than  Solo- 
mon. But  the  king  is  a  real  one  ;  he  offers  sacrifices, 
and  wins  victories  through  Jehovah's  support.  It  is 
certainly  unnecessary,  if  not  impossible,  to  idealize 
this  poem.  The  natural  inference  is  the  true  one,  that 
it  belongs  to  the  time  of  the  monarchy.  It  is  not  pos- 
sible to  date  it  more  closely.  It  may  fall  almost  any- 
where between  the  age  of  Solomon  and  the  Baby- 
lonian exile. 

There  is  nothing  to  indicate  accurately  the  charac- 
ter of  the  enemies  the  Jewish  king  was  to  meet.  Yet 
these  lines — 

•'  Some  by  chariots,  and  some  by  horses, 

But  we  are  exalted  by  the  name  of  Jahveh  our  God  "  (v.  7) 

suggest  that  it  was  one  of  the  great  powers  like  Egypt 
or  Assyria  which  Judah  was  to  meet  on  unequal  terms. 

a  very  slight  emendation  of  the  Hebrew  text.  This  reading  is 
adopted  by  Perowne,  Cheyne,  Baethgen,  Wcllhausen,  Reuss,  et  al. 
"  Save  "  is  used  here,  as  Cheyne  says,  in  the  sense  of  "give  vic- 
tory to.'' 


^90  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

The  Hebrews  evidently  had  no  armament  to  match 
that  of  their  foes  ;  but  they  had  a  sublime  confidence 
in  a  support  which  the  enemy  could  not  withstand.  It 
is  very  probable  that  this  king  was  one  of  those  who 
rehed  upon  prophetic  advice  and  divine  aid,  rather  than 
upon  intrigues  and  alliances. 

So  far  as  the  ideas  of  this  deeply  religious  poet  are 
concerned,  while  they  are  not  sufficient  to  fix  the  date 
in  the  pre-exilic  period,  they  are  at  all  events  not  in- 
consistent with  that  date. 

2.  Psalm  xxi.  This  poem  expresses  the  religious 
feehngs  and  hopes  of  the  king,  and  the  favor  which 
God  has  shown  him  ;  it  is  therefore  not  probable  that 
it  was  composed  by  a  king.  The  monarch's  chief  joy 
is  in  the  aid  he  receives  from  on  high. 

"  O  Jahveh.  the  king  rejoices  in  thy  strength  ; 
And  in  thy  succor  how  he  exults  !  "  (v.  i). 

The  poet  pictures  the  prosperous  career  upon  which 
Jehovah  has  started  His  anointed  : 

"  The  desire  of  his  heart  thou  hast  granted  him, 
The  prayer  of  his  lips  thou  hast  not  denied. 
Thou  placest  before  him  blessings  of  good, 
Thou  settest  for  his  head  a  crown  of  gold  "  (v.  2f.). 

The  crown  suggests  that  this  may  be  a  coronation 
hymn  ;  some  have  thought  that  the  poem  was  com- 
posed for  the  annual  coronation  festival.  That  the 
crown  was  of  fine  gold  creates  no  real  difficulty  ;  the 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  2qI 

LXX.,  however,  reads,  ''crown  of  precious  stones"; 
but  even  if  the  Hebrew  text  is  correct,  the  expression 
does  not  go  beyond  the  proper  bounds  of  poetic 
license.  As  Perowne  suggests,  the  golden  crown  may 
be  a  figure  for  the  prosperity  described  in  the  preced- 
ing line. 

There  are  two  expressions  in  the  following  lines 
which  have  made  many  think  a  Messianic  king  to  be 
intended : 

"  He  asked  of  thee  life  :  thou  hast  given  to  him 
Length  of  days  for  ever  and  ever. 
Thou  enduest  him  with  blessings  for  ever, 
Thou  exaltest  him  with  joy  in  thy  presence  "  (vs.  4,  6). 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  saw  in  the  answer  to  this 
prayer  a  plain  reference  to  Hezekiah's  lengthened  life 
after  his  severe  illness.  It  would  be  almost  as  difficult 
to  explain  the  words  "for  ever  and  ever  "  in  the  Jewish 
conception  of  the  Messianic  king  as  to  regard  them  as 
a  poetical  expression  for  long  life.  The  Hebrew  saw 
himself  perpetuated  as  long  as  his  seed  survived  (cf. 
Psa.  xviii.  50)  ;  hence  to  die  childless,  or  to  have  one's 
posterity  cut  off,  was  the  greatest  of  calamities.  David's 
joy  was  unbounded  because  of  the  promise  that  his 
seed  should  sit  upon  the  throne  of  Israel  for  ever  (II. 
Sam.  vii.  13).  These  words,  therefore,  afford  no  rea- 
son for  resisting  the  clear  inference  that  the  poet  is 
describing  a  real  king. 

Moreover,  the  hope  of  the  people  does  not    centre 


292  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

in  the  king,  as   it  would  if  he  were  the    Messiah,  but 
in  Jehovah  Himself. 

"  For  the  king  trusts  in  Jahveh, 
And  by  the  mercy  of  the  Most  High  he  feels  secure  "  (v.  7). 

It  is  Jehovah  who  will  overthrow  the  foes  that,  in 
harassing  His  people,  purpose  evil  against  Him. 

*'  Thy  hand  will  find  all  thy  enemies, 
Thy  right  hand  will  find  thy  haters. 
Thou  wilt  make  them  turn  the  back  ; 
With  thy  bow  thou  wilt  aim  at  their  face  "  (vs.  8,  12). 

It  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  an  actual  king  is  the 
subject  of  the  poet's  hopes  and  prayers  ;  but  it  is  not 
possible  to  name  the  king,  or  the  precise  period  to 
which  he  belongs.  There  is  no  hint  as  to  the  char- 
acter of  the  enemies  whom  God  will  overthrow.  We 
can  fix  the  date  in  the  pre-exilic  period,  but  must  rest 
content  with  that.  The  various  conjectures  which 
have  been  made  as  to  who  this  king  actually  was  are 
largely  fanciful.  It  is  useless  to  try  to  go  beyond  the 
evidence. 

3.  Psalm  xlv.  This  is  a  royal  marriage  hymn,  and,  as 
Dr.  Peters  has  said,  '*  the  only  secular  poem  in  the 
Psalter."  Cheyne,  whose  carefully  wrought  conclu- 
sions are  never  to  be  too  lightly  regarded,  said  in  his 
"Bampton  Lectures"  (p.  166)  that  "  the  royal  subject  of 
the  song  is  by  no  means  King  Messiah,  as  the  Targum 
and  most  Jewish  and  early  Christian  interpreters  sup- 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  293 

posed,  but  some  contemporary  monarch."  This  mon- 
arch was  in  his  opinion  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  (285- 
247  B.C.).  Later  he  has  apparently  accepted  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  Targum,  and  now  regards  the 
Psalm  as  purely  Messianic  The  problems  for  the  stu- 
dent are  to  determine  whether  the  king  is  real  or  ideal, 
and  whether  he  is  Jewish  or  foreign.  Let  us 
look  at  some  of  the  expressions  of  the  Korahite  song, 
which  Cheyne  happily  calls  a  prelude  to  the  Song  of 
Songs,  to  see  what  they  most  naturally  mean. 

The  poet  feels  powerfully  moved  by  the  splendor  of 
his  subject. 

"  My  heart  is  stirred  with  a  goodly  theme  ; 
I  am  speaking  now  a  work  on  the  king  "  (v.  i). 

Like  all  court  poets,  however  much  he  may  be 
moved  by  the  spirit  of  God,  he  must  sing  the  praises  of 
the  king.  Let  us  hope  that  the  author  was  no  mere 
flatterer,  but  that  his  sovereign  deserved  this  adulation. 
At  all  events,  it  is  not  unworthy  that  a  patriot's  love 
for  his  king  should  lead  him  to  magnify  his  graces. 

"  Thou  art  beautiful  beyond  the  sons  of  men, 
Grace  is  poured  forth  from  thy  lips. 
Therefore  God  blesses  thee  for  ever. 
Gird  thy  sword  upon  thy  thigh,  O  hero, 
Majesty  and  splendor  are  thine. 
Thy  throne,  O  divinity,*  is  for  ever  and  ever, 
The  sceptre  of  thy  rule  is  a  sceptre  of  right  "  (vs.  2f.,  6). 

*  Some  modern  interpreters    emend    the    text,    reading  "will 


294  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

Exalted  as  the  picture  is  in  these  and  in  the  follow, 
ing  verses  describing  the  fragrant  garments,  handsome 
palaces,  and  charming  music,  it  fits  so  perfectly  an  act- 
ually reigning  king,  that  it  seems  quite  impossible  that 
the  picture  should  be  an  ideal  one.  The  literal  sense 
is  always  to  be  assumed  as  the  right  one,  whenever  it 
may  be  accepted  without  violence. 

The  Psalmist  introduces  the  bride,  not  for  herself, 
but  for  the  further  glorification  of  the  king. 

"  Daughters  of  kings  are  among  thy  dear  ones  ; 
On  thy  right  hand  stands  the  bride  in  gold  of  Ophir  "  (v.  9). 

The  picture  becomes  very  realistic  as  the  poet  thinks 
of  the  natural  sadness  of  a  maiden  taken  from  her 
home,  and  called  upon  to  endure  the  lonely  seclusion 
of  an  Oriental  palace. 

*'  Hear,  daughter,  yea,  see  and  incline  thy  ear. 
Forget  thy  nation  and  thy  father's  household  : 
That  the  king  may  long  for  thy  beauty ; 
Since  he  is  thy  lord,  submit  thyself  to  him  "  (v.  lof.). 

We  learn  now  that  the  bride  was  a  Phoenician  prin- 
cess, though  the  text  is  not  beyond  question.  The 
bridal  procession  indicates  a  real  marriage. 

stand";  it  is  simpler  to  take  'Elohim  as  the  title  of  the  king.  There 
are  -innumerable  parallels  for  this  title  applied  to  absolute  mon- 
archs.  'Elohim  is  sometimes  used  of  a  judge.  (See  Brown-Driver, 
••  Hebrew  Lexicon.") 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  295 

"  O  daughter  of  Tyre, 
The  rich  of  the  nation  flatter  thee  with  gifts. 
All  glorious  is  the  king's  daughter, 
Her  clothing  is  pearls*  set  in  gold. 
In  gaily  colored  robes  she  is  brought  to  the  king 
Virgins  following  her  are  her  attendants  ; 
Into  thy  presence  they  are  ushered. 
They  are  led  in  with  joy  and  gladness, 
They  enter  the  palace  of  a  king"  (vs.  127-15). 

The  closing  lines  are  addressed  to  the  king,  not,  as 
is  often  erroneously  supposed,  to  the  bride.  From  this 
union  with  the  princess  the  poet  looks  for  sons  who 
shall  uphold  the  dignity  of  the  royal  estate. 

"  In  the  place  of  thy  fathers  there  will  be  thy  sons, 
Whom  thou  wilt  make  princes  all  through  the  land. 
I  will  make  thy  name  famous  in  all  ages, 
So  nations  will  glorify  thee  forever"  (v.  i6f.). 

It  strains  language  unnecessarily  to  interpret  all 
these  realistic  details  in  a  figurative  way.  There  is 
certainly  good  ground  for  the  beHef  that  the  poet  is 
celebrating  the  nuptials  of  an  actual  king.  But  it  is 
not  so  obvious,  one  must  confess,  that  the  king  is  Jew- 
ish, and  hence  of  the  pre-exilic  period.  The  Psalm 
contains  words  which  are  of  foreign  origin,  and  unusual 
in  Hebrew.  They  are  not  decisive,  however,  in  favor 
of  a  late  date.  They  might  have  been  used  in  the 
northern   kingdom  at  almost  any  time;  and  in  Judah 

♦Following  a  slightly  emended  text  accepted  by  most  scholars. 


296  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

foreign  words  became  quite  common  before  the  exile. 
There  is  one  expression  which  points  pretty  clearly  to 
an  Israelite  king,  though  Wellhausen  does  not  admit 
the  inference.  In  verse  7  the  words  **  God  thy  God" 
must  have  been  originally  '*  Jahveh  thy  God,"  the 
change  being  due  to  an  Elohistic  revision.  This  ex- 
pression could  not,  it  seems  to  me,  be  used  of  a  foreign 
king.  Many  suggestions  have  been  made  as  to  the 
precise  person  whose  marriage  inspired  this  song. 
Ahab,  Jeroboam  II.,  Joram,  and  in  fact  about  every  one 
known  to  have  contracted  a  Phoenician  marriage,  have 
been  named ;  whence  Baethgen  says  truly  :  **  This 
enumeration  sufificiently  shows  that  the  Psalm  offers  no 
grounds  for  a  certain  dating"  ('*  Die  Psalmen,"  p.  129). 

II.  The  group  of  Psalms,  which  may  be  referred  to 
the  pre-exilic  period  on  the  ground  of  their  religious 
ideas,  need  not  be  discussed  at  much  length.  These  are 
the  anti-sacrificial  Psalms,  xl.,  1.,  and  li.  The  poets 
who  sang  these  songs  had  learned  the  great  truth  that 
God's  favor  may  be  secured  without  the  mediation  of 
priest  or  sacrifice — a  truth  incessantly  preached  by  the 
great  prophets,  but  which  the  Hebrews  as  a  people 
never  fully  grasped. 

We  can  look  only  at  a  few  expressions,  but  these  are 
so  convincing  that  they  are  by  many  deemed  sufificient. 

"  With  sacrifice  and  offering  thou  art  not  pleased, 
The  ears  hast  thou  opened  for  me, 
Burnt  and  sin  offering  thou  dost  not  demand  "  (xl.  6). 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  297 

According  to  their  favorite  fashion,  the  people  have 
entered  into  a  covenant  with  Jehovah  by  solemn  sac- 
rifices. 

•'  Gather  to  me  my  loved  ones, 
Who  made  a  covenant  with  sacrifice"  (1.  5). 

But  necessary  as  this  seemed  to  the  people,  it  was  a 
matter  of  more  than  indifference  to  God.  A  spiritual 
offering  was  acceptable  to  Him.  Obedience  was  better 
than  sacrifice. 

"  I  rebuke  thee  not  because  of  sacrifices  : 
Thy  burnt- offerings  are  ever  before  me. 
I  will  take  no  bullock  from  thy  house, 
Nor  he-goat  from  thy  folds  ; 
For  all  the  beasts  of  the  forest  are  mine, 
The  cattle  on  a  thousand  hills. 
I  know  every  bird  of  the  mountains. 
The  animals  of  the  field  are  with  me. 
Were  I  hungry,  I  need  not  tell  thee ; 
For  mine  is  the  world  and  all  therein. 
Can  I  eat  the  flesh  of  bulls  ? 
Or  drink  the  blood  of  goats  ? 
Sacrifice  to  God  a  thanksgiving. 
And  to  the  Most  High  pay  thy  vows. 
Yea,  call  on  me  in  the  day  of  distress, 
I  will  save  thee,  that  thou  hold  me  in  honor"    (1.  8-15). 

Psalm  H.  contains  such  profound  conceptions  of  sin, 
that  it  could  scarcely  belong  to  early  Hebrew  thought, 
as  Cheyne  justly  holds.  But  the  Psalmist's  conception 
of  spiritual  communion  with   God   belongs    peculiarly 


298  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

to  the  prophetic  age.  The  great  thing  in  this  poem  is 
the  consciousness  of  sin.  The  Psalmist  feels  deeply 
that  peace  for  his  guilty  soul  can  come  only  from  God. 
How  easy  it  would  be  to  offer  an  appropriate  sacrifice, 
and  then  persuade  oneself  that  the  debt  were  paid  and 
the  sin  removed  !  But  this  sin  is  not  so  lightly  purged. 
The  sufferer  knows  too  well  the  harder  requirements 
of  a  moral  and  spiritual  God. 

"  O  Lord,  open  thou  my  lips. 
And  my  mouth  shall  show  forth  thy  praise. 
For  thou  likest  not  sacrifice,  or  I  would  give  it ; 
Burnt  offerings  give  thee  no  pleasure. 
God's  sacrifices  are  a  broken  spirit ; 
A  heart  broken  and  crushed  God  scorns  not  "  (vs.  15-17). 

The  closing  verses  of  the  Psalm  are  relied  upon  to 
place  it  in  the  exilic  period.  They  are  altogether  out 
of  harmony  with  the  ideas  above  quoted. 

''  Do  good  in  thy  pleasure  to  Zion, 
Build  the  walls  of  Jerusalem. 
Then  thou  canst  delight   in   the  appointed  sacrifices,  in  the 

whole  burnt- offerings ; 
Then  will  they  sacrifice  bullocks  upon  thy  altar  "  (v.  r8f.). 

These  words  unmistakably  betray  the  exilic  or  post- 
exilic  period.  But  did  so  spiritual  a  poet  reach  at  the 
end  so  poor  a  conclusion  }  It  is  much  more  likely  that 
these  verses  are  an  addition,  or  two  additions,  perhaps: 
first,  the  bitter  cry  of  the  patriotic  soul  who,  like  Ne- 
hemiah,  bewailed  the  poor  estate  of  the  holy  city,  and 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  299 

earnestly  prayed  for  its  restoration  ;  and  then  the 
promise  of  sacrifices,  the  natural  consequence  of  the 
re-established  altar,  added  by  one  who  thought  to  make 
this  favorite  poem  more  orthodox  from  his  own  point 
of  view. 

One  need  not  deny  that  such  spiritual  conceptions 
were  held  by  a  saving-  remnant  in  the  more  ritual  post- 
exilic  age  (cf.  Zech.  vii.,viii.  and  Malachi);  but  there  is 
no  place  in  which  these  ideas  found  such  expression  as 
in  the  prophets  Amos,  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  as  has 
already  been  shown  at  length  in  chap.  v.  There  is,  at 
least,  therefore,  reasonable  ground  for  assigning  these 
Psalms  to  the  pre-exilic  age,  even  if  we  cannot  date 
them  more  precisely. 

III.  So  many  Psalms  have  been  assigned  to  the 
Maccabean  age  by  recent  critics,  that  it  may  seem  un- 
necessarily sceptical  to  raise  the  question  whether  any 
can  fairly  be  placed  in  so  late  a  period,*  or  rather, 
whether  any  must  be  placed  so  late.  Driver,  in  his 
revised  '*  Introduction"  (p.  sS/fif.)  does  not  hesitate  to 
ask  that  question,  and  is  not  very  positive  in  his  an- 
swer. But  even  conservative  scholars,  as  Delitzch  and 
Perowne,t  hold  that  some  belong  to  this  age.  If  we 
believe  that  some  critics  have  made  this  age  too  prolific 
of  sacred  poetry,  it  is  still  not  necessary  to  deny  to  it  al- 

*The  Maccabean  period  begins  at  168  B.C. 
t  See  their  notes  on  Pss.  xliv.,  Ixxiv.,  and  Ixxix.     Calvin  also  as- 
signed *hese  Psalms  to  the  Maccabean  period. 


300  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

together  a  voice  for  its  religious  emotions.    It  must  be 
simply  a  question  of  evidence. 

On  historical  grounds,  Pss.  xliv.,  Ixxiv.,  and  Ixxix.,  as 
we  shall  presently  see,  fit  the  Maccabean  age  very  well. 
But  Robertson  Smith  (O.  T.  J.  C,  p.  20ifif )  raised  the 
objection  that  if  these  Psalms  belonged  to  so  late  a 
period  they  could  not  have  found  a  place  in  Books  II. 
and  III.  of  the  Psalter.  Sanday  is  so  much  impressed 
with  this  argument,  that  he  doubts  whether  any  Psalms 
are  of  Maccabean  origin.  The  point  on  which  he  lays 
stress  is  that  the  Greek  version  of  the  Psalter  was 
made  not  later  than  i00B.C.,and  that  *' the  number  of 
steps  implied  between  it  and  the  original  composition 
of  the  Hebrew  Psalms  is  so  great  as  to  make  it  diffi- 
cult to  get  them  all  into  the  interval.""  But  our  in- 
formation is  not  yet  sufficient  to  reject  a  Maccabean 
date  on  a  priori  %xo\ix\<^s.  Each  case  must  be  consid- 
ered on  its  merits,  to  determine  which  we  are  obliged 
to  fall  back  again  upon  the  internal  evidence.  Our 
limits  will  not  permit  us  to  do  more  than  make  a 
cursory    examination     of    the    three    Psalms    named 

*  "  Inspiration,"  p.  257.  See  also,  especially,  his  note  on  "  The  In- 
ferior Limits  for  the  Date  of  the  Psalter,"  p.  27off.,  where  this  able 
scholar  traces  the  nine  steps  presupposed  between  the  composition 
of  a  Psalm  and  the  Greek  translation.  It  does  not  follow,  however, 
that  all  the  steps  were  successive ;  and  it  is  very  difficult  to  tell 
how  long  a  time  would  be  required  to  complete  the  various  stages 
by  which  the  Psalter  reached  its  completed  form. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIE  W.  301 

above,  and  our  purpose   does   not   require   more  than 
this. 

1.  Psahn  xliv.  The  pathetic  note  of  this  Psalm  moves 
the  dullest  soul.  The  contrast  between  God's  active 
aid  to  Israel  in  the  olden  days,  and  His  seeming  indif- 
ference now,  is  a  riddle  which  this  troubled  poet  can- 
not solve,  except  by  that  great  power  which  for  some 
happily  solves  all  the  problems  of  human  life — faith  in 
God.  Let  us  quote  a  few  lines  to  see  how  great  the 
contrast  is.  The  impression  will  be  very  strong  that 
the  poet  looks  back  to  the  Conquest  as  if  it  were  in  the 
distant  past. 

'•  We  have  heard  with  our  ears,  O  God, 
Our  fathers  have  told  unto  us, 
The  deeds  thou  wroughtest  in  their  days, 
In  the  days  of  yore. 

Thy  own  hand  drove  the  nations  out,  and  plantedst  them  ; 
Thou  didst  cut  off  the  peoples,  and  send  them  away"  (v.  if.). 

The  hopes  such  a  history  would  naturally  raise  are 
dashed  to  pieces  by  facts.  The  pitiable  condition  of 
the  present  shows  the  low  estate  of  the  much  tried 
people. 

"  Now  thou  hast  cast  us  off  and  brought  us  to  shame  ; 
Thou  goest  forth  with  our  armies  no  more. 
Thou  makest  us  turn  the  back  to  the  foe, 
And  those  that  hate  us  make  us  their  plunder. 
Thou  settest  us  a  butt  among  the  nations, 
A  wagging  of  the  head  among  the  peoples  "  (vs.  pf.,  14). 


302  THE  OLD   TESTAMEJSTT  FROM 

God's  displeasure,  and  the  withholding  of  His  help- 
ing hand,  had  been  easily  interpretable  to  the  prophets, 
because  Israel  was  a  disobedient  people.  Now,  how- 
ever, this  explanation  will  not  serve  :  for  the  nation  as- 
serts righteousness  of  itself. 

"  All  this  has  befallen  us,  though  we  forgot  thee  not, 
Nor  have  we  been  false  to  thy  covenant. 
Our  heart  did  not  turn  away  backward. 
Nor  have  our  steps  bc:it  from  thy  way. 
For  because  of  thee  we  are  slain  every  day  ; 
We  are  regarded  as  a  flock  to  be  killed  "  (vs.  lyf.,  22). 

When  were  the  Jews  in  such  a  condition  ?  When 
did  they  sufTer  martyrdom  for  their  religion  ?  So  far 
as  we  know — and  we  have  to  confess  much  ignorance 
of  the  post-exilic  period — there  is  no  time  so  suitable 
as  the  Maccabean  age.  The  persecutions  which  the 
Jews  endured  at  the  hands  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
(II.  Mace.  v.  I  iff.),  form  the  best  background  for 
the  due  appreciation  of  this  touching  poem. 

2.  Psalm  Ixxiv.  The  condition  of  the  Jews  when 
this  Psalm  was  written  was  bad  in  the  extreme.  It 
seemed  as  if  God  had  given  the  enemy  a  free  hand  to 
work  their  evil  will  against  His  people.  Let  us  read 
carefully  this  considerable  extract,  that  the  true  condi- 
tion may  be  fully  disclosed. 

"  O  God,  why  castest  thou  off  forever  ? 
Why  burns  thy  wrath  in  the  flock  of  thy  feeding  ? 
Remember  thy  congregation :  thou  gottest  it  of  old : 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  303 

Thou  didst  redeem  it  as  the  tribe  of  thy  inheritance, 

Mount  Zion  here,  in  which  thou  abidest. 

Set  thy  steps  towards  the  eternal  ruins — * 

Ail  the  enemy's  harm  in  the  sanctuary. 

Thy  foes  roared  in  thy  very  meeting-place; 

They  have  set  up  their  standards  for  signs,  t 

They  seemed  like  those  swinging  aloft 

Axes  in  the  thickets  of  a  forest. 

And  now  the  whole  of  its  carved  wood  X 

They  smash  with  axes  and  hammers. 

They  have  set  fire  to  thy  sanctuary  ; 

They  desecrated  to  earth  the  abode  of  thy  name. 

They  said  in  their  heart,  Let  us  suppress  them  altogether;  |} 

They  burned  all  the  synagogues  §  in  the  land. 

"  We  see  no  signs,  for  we  have  no  prophet, 
We  have  none  that  knows  how  long.  IF 

*  The  LXX.  reads,  "Lift  thy  hands  against  their  eternal  contempt." 

t  Codices  Vat.  and  Alex,  lack  this  line. 

\  5a,  6^  are  rendered  in  the  LXX.,  "  As  in  a  thick  wood,  they 
have  cut  down  its  doors  with  axes."  Wellhausen  regards  the  text 
of  vs.  5  and  6  as  "  hopelessly  corrupt  and  quite  untranslatable." 

11 1  have  given  Cheyne's  rendering,  involving  a  change  of  text  vir- 
tually the  same  as  Wellhausen's.  The  Hebrew  has  "their  race 
altogether";  though  supported  by  the  LXX,,  this  has  to  be  re- 
jected, as  it  does  not  m-;ke  sense.  It  is  certain  tliat  the  passage 
must  state  what  the  enemy  says. 

§  Literally,  "  All  of  God's  meeting-places."  This  can  only  refer 
to  the  synagogues  ;  for,  except  the  temple,  God  had  no  other  meet- 
ing-place. 

1"  The  LXX.,  by  omitting  one  Hebrew  word,  gives  a  good  read- 
ing: "  There  is  yet  no  one  to  make  us  know." 


304  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

O  God,  how  long  shall  the  foe  scoff  ? 

Shall  the  enemy  scorn  thy  name  forever? 

Why  holdest  thou  back  thy  hand  ? 

Why  keep  thy  right  hand  in  thy  bosom  ?  "  *  (vs.  i-ii). 

The  holy  temple  on  Mount  Zion  is  not  burned  to 
the  ground,  as  it  was  by  Nebuchadrezzar  in  586  B.C.; 
but  its  adornments  have  been  violently  broken,  it  has 
been  profaned,  and  fire  has  contributed  its  part  to 
make  the  place  seem  like  an  eternal  ruin.  The  syna- 
gogues everywhere  have  been  completely  destroyed  by 
fire.  The  foe  exulted  in  the  violence  they  did  to  the 
sajcred  things  of  the  God  of  Israel,  and  there  was  no 
ominous  handwriting  on  the  wall  to  stay  them.  The 
suffering  Jews  saw  no  "  signs  ^'  indicative  of  God's  in- 
tervention ;  there  was  no  longer  a  prophet  to  tell  them 
when  the  end  would  be.  They  knew  what  God  had 
done  in  the  past,  and  what  He  was  doing  in  the  natural 
world  at  present  (vs.  17-23)  ;  but  it  was  hard  to 
understand  why  He  endured  the  contempt  of  the  ruth- 
less foes,  and  why  He  permitted  His  people  to  bear  such 
shame  (18-23).  The  Jews  were  persecuted  for  their 
religion,  not  punished  as  rebellious  subjects. 

*  The  LXX.  renders  this  line,  "  And  thy  right  hand  from  thy 
bosom  forever  ?"  The  Hebrew  text  contains  a  slight  error.  The 
parallelism  shows  that  "  consume,'*  as  Revised  Version  translates, 
is  wrong.  The  generally  accepted  rendering  given  above  emends 
the  text  by  changing  a  single  letter,  an  emendation  often  required 
elsewhere. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  305 

This  poet  evidently  was  no  idealist.  He  did  not  at- 
tempt to  represent  things  according-  to  his  preconcep- 
tions. He  sets  forth  a  "  condition,  not  a  theory."  The 
facts  are  painfully  real  to  him,  and  for  their  explanation 
he  knows  he  must  wait.  He  indulges  in  no  imaginative 
exaltation  of  the  weak  Jews  over  their  mighty  enemies. 
The  latter  have  the  upper  hand  too  completely  for  that ; 
and  this  Psalmist  is  too  truthful  to  facts  for  that. 

Where  are  we  to  look  for  the  scenes  which  prompted 
this  sad  picture  ?  Let  us  glance  at  the  conditions  in 
the  Maccabean  period,  at  least  at  a  few  of  its  features. 
The  pious  were  then  much  perplexed  because  there 
was  no  prophet  to  guide  them  (I.  Mace.  iv.  46,  ix. 
27,  xiv.  41).  Their  sacred  treasures  were  then  vio- 
lated :  ''  And  the  king  [Antiochus  Epiphanes]  sent 
letters  by  messengers  to  Jerusalem  and  to  the  cities 
of  Judah,  that  they  should  proceed  after  the  customs 
foreign  to  the  land,  and  should  prevent  burnt  offerings, 
and  sacrifices,  and  drink  offerings  at  the  sanctuary  ; 
and  should  profane  the  Sabbath  and  sacred  festivals, 
and  defile  the  holy  place  and  holy  persons  ;  that  they 
should  rebuild  high  places,  and  sacred  precincts,  and 
images,  and  should  sacrifice  swine  and  unclean  ani- 
mals, and  should  cause  their  sons  to  go  uncircum- 
cised  "  {ib./\.  44ff.).  Much  mischief  was  done  to  the 
temple:  "Behold  our  sanctuary  was  laid  waste,  and 
the  altar  defiled  ;  and  the  gates  were  burned,  and  in 
the  courts  trees  were  grown  as  in  a  wood,  or  as  in  one 


306  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

of  the  mountains,  and  the  priests'  chambers  were  torn 
down."*  There  were  no  synagogues  until  the  post- 
exilic  period  ;  but  we  surely  find  them  mentioned  in  I. 
Mace.  iii.  46: ''  We  assembled  and  went  to  Mizpeh,  over 
against  Jerusalem,  for  a  place  of  prayer  was  at  Miz- 
peh." 

The  correspondence  is  certainly  close.  There  is  no 
other  known  period  which  this  Psalm  fits.  If  histori- 
cal allusions  are  to  be  given  their  due  weight,  we  can- 
not hesitate  to  refer  this  Psalm  to  the  period  of  the 
persecutions  of  Antiochus. 

3.  Psalm  Ixxix.  This  is  so  much  like  Psa.  Ixxiv.  that 
we  shall  not  be  in  error  in  assigning  it  to  the  same 
period,  whatever  that  may  be.  We  need  do  no  more, 
then,  than  point  out  the  conditions  which  prompted 
this  poem. 

The  heathen  enemies  had  defiled  the  temple  and  dev- 
astated Jerusalem  ;  they  had  slain  the  Jews  and  left 
their  bodies  unburied  (vs.  I,  2).  The  people  of  God 
had  become  the  scorn  of  the  heathen  (v.  4);  the  nation 
was  sadly  reduced,  and  the  means  of  living  few  (v./f.). 
Prisoners  sighed  in  the  dungeons,  awaiting  the  time  of 
their  execution  (v.   11). 

IV.  But  three  more  Psalms  can  be  examined.  We 
will  look  at  those  which  point  to  the  exile  in  Babylon 

*  I.  Mace.  iv.  38 ;  cf.  the  Greek  rendering  of  v.  6.  of  the 
Psalm,  note  J,  p.  303.     See  also  II.  Mace.  i.  18,  viii.  33. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  307 

or  later.  It  needs  no  critical  training  to  see  that  such 
a  song  as  Psa.  cxxxvii.  sprang  from  the  conditions  of 
the  exile.  That  this  pathetic  poem  was  written  out  of 
the  experiences  of  one  who  had  but  lately  endured  the 
sorrows  of  exile  from  the  holy  land,  is  obvious  from 
the  most  cursory  reading.  But  in  the  case  of  others 
the  date  is  not  so  evident.  The  cases  are  selected  ac- 
cording to  the  general  purpose  to  show  method  rather 
than  results. 

I.  Psalm  iv.  The  subject  of  this  poem  is  either  the 
righteous  nation  or  the  righteous  Israelite.  He  speaks 
in  a  time  when  one  could  base  his  expectation  of  suc- 
cor on  his  belief  in  his  own  righteousness  (v.  3).  His 
righteousness  is  of  the  law,  the  only  kind  which  it  is  pos- 
sible for  any  discerning  man  to  credit  himself  with.  The 
standard  of  the  pre-exilic  age  was  that  of  the  prophets, 
a  moral  standard,  going  back  in  its  fundamental  concep- 
tions to  the  Decalogue  and  to  Moses.  In  that  period 
there  is  no  "  righteous  nation."  The  prophets  judge  Is- 
rael to  be  a  sinful  people,  not  because  they  have  failed  to 
offer  sacrifice,  but  because  they  have  stolen,  murdered, 
and  committed  adultery ;  and  the  stain  of  these  is  not 
removable  with  the  blood  ot  bulls  and  of  goats.  The 
post-exilic  ideal,  on  the  other  hand,  was  the  ceremo- 
nial law.*     The  Israelite  was  to  present  offerings  at  the 

*One  cannot  be  too  careful  to  guard  against  confusing  the  origin 
ot  priestly  institutions  with  their  ascendancy  as  the  national  ideal. 
Priest  and  sacrifice  belong  to  early  Israel  as  truly  as  to  late  ;  but 


3o8  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

temple  according  to  a  carefully  drawn  system.  Incom- 
pliance with  the  code  he  was  to  find  his  righteousness. 
Sin  was  now  atoned  for  by  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of 
goats.  The  prescribed  rites,  elaborate  as  they  were, 
could  easily  be  kept,  and  the  keeping  implanted  in  the 
people  a  sense  of  righteousness  which  had  never  before 
been  possible.  There  is  no  surer  indication  of  the  post- 
exilic  age  of  a  Psalm  than  the  assertion  of  righteous- 
ness. 

When  this  poem  (Psa.  iv^)  was  written  the  temple 
was  in  full  use,  and  the  people  are  called  upon  "  to  sac- 
rifice the  prescribed  sacrifices."*  It  is  an  age  when 
scepticism  is  common  (v.  6);  against  this  the  pious  au- 
thor protests  in  faith  and  hope. 

The  Psalm  cannot  be  placed  in  the  pre-exilic  age. 
The  reference  to  the  temple  and  sacrifice,  and  the  idea 
of  righteousness,  all  point  to  the  post-exilic  period,  but 
give  no  more  precise  indication  of  date.f 

the  ritual  system  became  the  national  religion  only  in  the  post-ex- 
ilic age,  when  the  voice  of  prophecy  was  faint  or  silent.  This  may, 
indeed,  be  a  return  to  conditions  which  prevailed  in  the  pre- Mo- 
saic age.  It  is  likely  that  sacrifice  was  at  all  times  a  large  element 
in  the  popular  religion. 

*  V.  5.  The  rendering  of  the  English  versions,  "  the  sacrifice  of 
righteousness, "  is  misleading  ;  this  poet  had  no  conception  of  spir- 
itual sacrifice.  The  word  rendered,  "of  righteousness"  (sedeq), 
has  elsewhere  the  sense  of  right  or  prescribed,  e.g.,  Psa.  li.  19, 
where  I  have  translated  appoiiited  (p.  298). 

t  Cheyne  assigns  this  Psalm  to  "  the  period  when  faithful  Israel- 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  309 

2.  Psalm  xxii.  This  Is  a  Messianic  Psalm  pre-emi- 
nently ;  but  we  may  nevertheless  seek  to  understand 
the  conditions  out  of  which  the  picture  of  the  Messiah 
grew.  The  Christian  approaches  the  study  of  the 
Psalm  with  peculiar  reverence  ;  for  it  contains  the 
words  that  fell  to  the  lips  of  our  blessed  Lord  to  ex- 
press  His  emotions  at  the  dark  hour  of  His  Passion. 
Could  anything  else  more  convincingly  show  its  truly 
Messianic  character?  The  ground  on  which  the  critic 
may  seek  to  find  a  date  for  this  Psalm  is  the  obvious 
one  that  every  writing  has  a  date  which  is  of  interest  to 
mankind,  and  that  God  opens  the  eyes  of  His  servants, 
in  chief  part  it  may  well  be  by  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  but  also  in  no  inconsiderable  measure  by 
the  circumstances  amidst  which  their  life  is  cast.  How 
could  any  Jew  have  ever  conceived  the  vicarious  suf- 
fering of  the  Messiah  except  he  had  known  the  martyr 
life  and  death  which  gave  the  suggestion  for  Isa.  liii.? 
It  required  both  the  vision  on  the  housetop  and  the 
falling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  Cornelius  to  open  St. 
Peter's  eyes  to  the  fact  that  **  God  was  no  respecter  of 
persons  "  (Acts  x.). 

The  sufferer  feels  that  God  has  abandoned  him  ;  he 
cries  night  and  day  to  Heaven,  but  there  is  no  answer. 
In  time  past  prayer  always  brought  a  response,  need 
always  brought  help.     But  how   can  God  be  expected 

ites  were  so  sorely  oppressed,  both  by  traitors  in  their  midst  and 
by  their  Persian  tyrants  "  ("  Bampton  Lectures,"  p.  227). 


3IO  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

to  help  one  who  is  '*  a  worm,  and  not  a  man,"  re- 
proached, despised,  laughed  at,  and  ridiculed  ?  (v.  6f.). 
But  there  is  no  other  help  than  the  God  "  upon  whom 
he  had  been  cast  from  the  womb  "  (v.  lo).  As  this  dis- 
tressed soul  feels  that  God  alone  could  help,  so  he 
knows  no  God  but  Jehovah.  And  help  is  sorely 
needed.  Like  bulls  of  Bashan,  like  raging  lions,  the 
enemy  besets  him.  The  sufferer  is  reduced  in  body  and 
soul  ;  his  bones  may  be  counted  ;  his  garments  even 
are  taken  by  his  persecutors. 

Then  a  more  triumphant  note  is  sounded.  Can  we 
ever  forget  that  the  same  suffering  Saviour  who  said, 
"  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  "  said 
also,  "  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit  "? 
This  Psalm  could  not  be  so  truly  Messianic  if  it  had 
ended  in  the  gloom  with  which  it  began.  The  tone  of 
exaltation  and  triumph  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  com- 
plete  picture.  God  **  has  not  despised  nor  abhorred 
the  distress  of  the  lowly,  nor  hid  his  face  from  him  " 
(v.  24). 

Driver  says  this  Psalm  belongs  '*  to  the  exile  or 
later  "  (L.  O.  T.\  p.  386).  Ewald  assigns  it  to  the 
early  part  of  the  exilic  period.  Cheyne  refers  it  to  the 
time  just  before  Nehemiah,  when  "the  remnant  of  the 
captivity  there  in  the  province  are  in  great  affliction 
and  reproach  "  (''  Bampton  Lectures,"  p.  231).  The  dis- 
appointed hopes,  the-broken  hearts  of  the  pious,  in  the 
early  years  of  the  Restoration,  form  the  most  suitable 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  311 

background  for  this  Psalm.  The  ideas  are  in  good 
accord  with  this  date,  and  that  was  the  time  when 
Israel  was  taught  the  great  lesson  that  suffering  was 
not  a  mark  of  God's  disfavor.  Would  that  they  had 
made  better  use  of  that  lesson  ! 

3.  Psalm  xlii.(-xliii.).  That  these  were  originally  one 
has  already  been  shown  (chap.  ix.).  Ewald  put  these 
words  into  the  mouth  of  Jehoiachin  when  he  was  car- 
ried away  to  Babylon.  If  we  cannot  be  so  exact  in 
assigning  a  date,  we  may  still  be  sure  that  Ewald  was 
not  far  wrong.     The  opening  words — 

"  As  the  hart  pants  for  the  water  brooks, 
So,  O  God,  pants  my  soul  for  thee  " — 

reveal  clearly  one  who  felt  like  David,  that  to  be  away 
from  the  holy  land  was  to  be  away  from  God.  "When 
may  I  come  and  behold  the  face  of  God  ?  "^  is  a  ques- 
tion meaning  the  same  thing  as,  ''When  may  I  again 
visit  the  holy  city?"  The  captors  taunted  their  vic- 
tim with  his  vain  hope  of  help  from  his  God.  The 
captive  recalls,  with  mingled  pleasure  and  pain,  the 
days  when  he  had  gone  with  the  happy  throng  of 
worshippers.  He  hopes  surely  to  return  to  the  altar, 
there  again  to  offer  his  praises  to  God.  Therefore, 
the  Psalm  must  belong  to  the   first   Judean  captivity 

*  The  later  Jews,  to  whom  the  idea  of  seeing  God  was  intolera- 
ble, changed  the  meaning  of  the  word  rendered  "  behold  "  by 
pointing  the  text  to  read,  "  When  may  I  come  and  appear  before 
God  ? " 


312 


THE  OLD   TESTAMENT, 


(597-586  B.C.),  or  else  to  the  period  after  the  rebuild- 
ing of  the  temple  by  Zerubbabel  (515  B.C.).  It  is  not 
easy  to  decide  between  these  dates,  though  the  earlier 
seems  to  me  the  more  probable. 

Whatever  opinion  one  may  hold  as  to  the  reasona- 
bleness of  the  conclusions  here  reached,  he  must  not 
forget  that  the  religious  value  of  the  Psalms  is  not 
lessened  by  literary  criticism.  Psa.  xxii.  has  precisely 
the  same  Messianic  significance,  and  carries  to  the  soul 
the  same  lessons,  whether  it  was  written  by  David,  as 
the  Jewish  critics  asserted,  or  by  one  who  had  a  deeper 
experience  of  life,  and  a  profounder  conception  of  re- 
ligion than  was  possible  for  the  king,  whose  reign  was 
too  full  of  wars  and  blood  to  make  it  seemly  that  he 
should  be  the  builder  of  the  temple.  Only  a  larger 
knowledge  and  a  sounder  faith  can  come  to  one  who 
studies  the  Psalter  critically,  in  order  that  he  and  others 
may  have  its  spiritual  lessons  set  in  clearer  light. 
And  that  is  the  purpose  of  the  critical  study  of  the 
Psalms.  Prof.  Frants  Buhl,  of  Denmark,  has  well 
said:  ''There  [in  regard  to  the  Psalms]  the  Church 
has  every  reason  to  be  thankful  for  recent  researches, 
for  they  have  made  the  religious  content  of  those  songs 
much  more  clear,  and  have  made  it  much  more  easy 
for  us  to  apply  them  to  ourselves  devotionally  than 
was  the  case  before  "  {^American  Journal  of  Theology^ 
October,  1898,  p.  764). 


CHAPTER  XI. 


Criticism  anb  tbc  Supernatural. 

IT  is  hoped  that  it  has  been  made  clear  in  the  course 
of  the  critical  discussions  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ters that  such  investigation  does  not  and  can  not 
impair  the  religious  value  and  influence  of  the  Old 
Testament.  It  remains  to  consider  the  effect  of  criti- 
cal results  on  the  presence  of  the  supernatural  gener- 
ally. For  the  most  serious  indictment  of  modern  crit- 
icism is  that  it  robs  the  Old  Testament  of  the  super- 
natural. If  a  conviction  could  be  had  on  this  count,  it 
Avould  be  a  grave  matter;  but  a  conviction  has  not  yet 
been  secured,  and  never  can  be,  for  criticism  does  not 
attempt  such  a  disastrous  result,  and  would  fail  if  it 
did.  The  criticism  which  has  laid  its  hands  on  the 
supernatural  is  not  the  literary  or  higher,  but  the  sci- 
entific. With  this  we  have  here  no  concern.  It  is  left 
where  it  belongs,  in  the  able  and  willing  hands  of  the 
theologians. 

What  do  we  mean  by  the  supernatural  in  the  Old 
Testament?  To  some  this  means  miracles,  the  signs 
and  wonders  in  which  the  Israelites  delighted  when 
they  were  given  as  proofs  that  the  one  who  wrought 


314  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

them  spoke  as  the  messenger  of  Jehovah.  The  Nile 
turned  into  blood,  the  sweeping  of  the  waters  from  the 
Sea  and  from  the  Jordan,  the  ascent  of  the  angel  of 
Jehovah  in  the  fire,  the  standing  still  of  the  sun  and 
moon,  the  translation  of  Enoch  and  Elijah,  the  turning 
back  of  the  sun-dial,  Jonah's  living  in  the  belly  of  the 
great  fish,  the  speaking  of  Jehovah  and  of  His  angels 
to  men,  the  ability  of  prophets  to  foretell  future  events 
— it  is  in  such  phenomena  as  these  that  the  Christian 
world,  like  the  Jewish,  has  been  wont  to  see  the  pres- 
ence of  God. 

But  this  conception  of  the  supernatural  is  not  the 
teaching  of  the  Church  Catholic,  nor  of  that  branch  of 
the  same  to  which  it  is  my  privilege  to  belong.  The 
faith  of  the  Church  is  expressed  in  those  simple  but 
comprehensive  words  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  "Who  spake 
by  the  prophets."  We  must  remember  that  prophets, 
in  the  sense  of  the  term  in  the  Creed,  were  back  of  the 
law,  the  history,  the  wisdom,  and  the  poetry  of  the 
Scriptures,  as  well  as  of  the  prophets  in  the  narrower 
sense.  This  doctrine  is  not  a  lax  one,  framed  so  that 
anybody  can  hold  it;  it  admits  of  a  larger  belief  in  in- 
spiration than  the  elaborate  definitions  which  have  been 
much  in  vogue.  Any  further  definition  of  this  state- 
ment is  apt  to  limit  the  possible  area  of  belief.  The 
Church  has  wisely  given  to  her  children  the  liberty  to 
believe  largely,  and  it  is  wrong  to  interpret  this  into  a 
liberty  to  deny. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  315 

If  we  wish  to  keep  in  strict  harmony  with  the  Creed, 
therefore,  as  I  for  one  most  certainly  do,  and  still  de- 
sire to  find  the  supernatural  in  the  Old  Testament,  as 
I  again  surely  do,  it  is  not  the  signs  and  wonders  upon 
which  we  shall  fix  our  faith.  The  doctrine  of  the  Creed 
is  that  in  the  voice  of  prophecy  we  have  the  voice  of  a 
man  truly,  but  we  have  also  the  voice  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  I  have  given  ten  years  to  the  study  of  the  Old 
Testament ;  I  have  read  many  critical  works;  I  have  in- 
vestigated many  problems  myself;  I  may  have  earned 
the — to  many — odious  title  of  higher  critic;  but  I  have 
never  yet  seen  any  reason  to  doubt  that  in  the  many 
voices  which  are  heard  throughout  the  Hebrew  Scrip- 
tures,  all  the  way  from  Genesis  to  Malachi,  it  was  pos- 
sible to  hear  the  voice  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  or,  I  should 
rather  say,  it  was  impossible  not  to  hear  it. 

Likewise,  if  we  wish  to  keep  in  harmony  with  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  not  by  the  signs  and  won- 
ders that  we  shall  attempt  to  live.  The  parable  of 
Dives  and  Lazarus  teaches  some  wholesome  lessons  on 
this  subject.  The  craving  of  the  human  soul  for  a 
ground  of  certitude  which  God  has  not  seen  fit  to  give 
is  shown  in  Dives,  in  that  he  feels  so  confident  that  his 
five  brothers,  who  had  rejected  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
or  at  least  found  them  insufficient,  could  not  help  be- 
lieving and  reforming  if  one  went  to  them  from  the 
dead.  Just  so,  many  seem  to  hold  that  one  cannot  be- 
lieve that  the  Lord   is  his  shepherd  unless  he  holds 


3i6  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

David  to  be  the  author  of  the  words  ;  or  that  Christ 
died  for  him,  unless  he  believes  that  Jonah  lived  three 
days  in  the  belly  of  the  great  fish.  But  the  teaching- 
of  Jesus  is  plain:  "If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded  if  one  rise  from 
the  dead"  (St.  Luke  xvi.  31).  If  the  moral  and  spir- 
itual truths  of  the  Bible,  which  surely  are  of  God,  do 
not  take  vital  hold  of  the  human  soul,  there  is  no  use 
in  trying  to  bolster  up  a  weak  faith  by  signs  and  won- 
ders. Jesus  steadily  refused  to  meet  the  demand  for 
signs.  When  His  persecutors  said  they  would  believe 
in  Him  if  He  came  down  from  the  cross.  He  knew  how 
weak  was  the  faith  built  upon  such  a  foundation.  He 
preferred  the  faith  of  those  who  could  believe  even 
though  He  remained  on  the  cross  to  the  bitter  end. 

Few  peoples  have  ever  laid  more  stress  upon  the 
value  of  signs  and  wonders  than  the  Hebrews.  In  the 
days  of  the  Maccabees  we  have  seen  how  they  deplored 
the  lack  of  the  signs  which  to  them  clearly  indicated  the 
presence  of  God.  The  Jews  of  a  later  day  demanded 
signs  of  Jesus  as  proof  that  He  was  the  Christ.  But 
there  were  Hebrews  who  saw  how  easily  one  could  be 
led  astray  if  he  relied  upon  signs  and  wonders.  Here 
is  a  passage  which  should  be  carefully  considered  in  con- 
nection with  the  apologetic  value  of  signs:  "  If  there 
arise  in  thy  midst  a  prophet  or  a  dreamer  of  dreams,  and 
he  give  unto  thee  a  sign  or  a  wonder  ;  and  if  the  sign 
and  the  wonder  shall  happen  which  he  foretold  [literally 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF   VIEW.  317 

"  said  "]  to  thee  when  he  said,  Let  us  g-o  after  other  o-ods 
(whom  thou  knowest  not)  and  serve  them;  thou  shalt 
not  listen  to  the  words  of  that  prophet  or  that  dreamer 
of  dreams  ;  for  Jahveh  your  Goalis  testing-  you,  to  know 
whether  you  love  Jahveh  your  God  with  all  your  heart 
and  with  all  your  soul  "  (Deut.  xiii.   iff.). 

Little  comment  is  needed  on  so  clear  a  statement. 
The  Israelite  was  not  to  accept  the  evidence  of  a  sign 
or  wonder,  even  if  worked  by  a  prophet  of  God,  when  it 
would  lead  away  from  his  religious  duty.  There  was  a 
higher  evidence  than  any  sign.  There  were  some 
things  so  fundamental  that  signs  and  wonders  could 
not  affect  them.  Then  signs  and  wonders  can  have 
little,  if  any,  apologetic  value;  for  if  one  is  accepted,  all 
must  be.  It  is  illogical  to  call  those  valid  which  lead 
in  the  direction  we  would  take  anyway,  and  to  call 
others  snares  of  the  devil.  The  fact  is,  a  sign  is  of  lit- 
tle use  unless  supported  by  the  higher  evidence  of  the 
moral  sense. 

In  my  opinion,  too  hard  a  line  has  been  drawn  be- 
tween what  are  called  the  natural  and  the  supernatural. 
For  millions  of  years  God  has  made  the  sun  appear  to 
revolve  around  the  earth  ;  can  we  withhold  admiration 
of  those  who,  knowing  no  other  God,  worshipped  the 
sun  ?  But  this  is  called  natural  by  us,  and  it  goes  as  a 
matter  of  course.  Once  the  sun  appeared  to  halt  for 
a  season,  and  this  is  called  supernatural,  a  stupendous 
miracle  which  must  compel  faith  in  the  one  who  be- 


3t8  the  old  testament  FROM 

holds  it.  For  myself,  the  evidence  of  God  is  infinitely 
stronger  in  the  wonderful  regular  motions  of  the  heav- 
enly bodies  than  in  the  temporary  alteration  of  any 
part  of  the  system.  For  I  do  not  believe  the  earth 
could  run  its  course  in  the  heavens  for  a  single  day 
without  God,  any  more  than  I  could  live,  move  and 
have  my  being  except  in  Him.  The  part  such  gems 
as  Psalms  viii.  and  xix.  have  had  in  the  development 
of  this  faith  is  not,  I  think,  inconsiderable.  The  blade 
of  grass  shoots  from  the  earth,  the  flower  buds  and 
blooms,  the  leaf  bursts  forth  on  the  tree  ;  but  not 
without  the  ever  acting  power  of  God.  What  saith 
the  Scriptures? 

"  He  causeth  the  grass  to  grow  for  the  cattle, 
And  herb  for  the  service  of  man, 
O  Lord,  how  manifold  are  thy  works  ! 
In  wisdom  hast  thou  made  them  all ; 
The  earth  is  full  of  thy  riches  "  (Psa.  civ.  14,  24). 

Shall  we  not  lay  the  foundations  for  a  richer  faith  if 
we  substitute  for  this  term  supernatural  the  term 
God  ?  Then  we  may  consider  whether  it  is  possible  to 
accept  the  results  of  the  critical  investigation  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  at  the  same  time  believe  that  we  find 
God  in  that  book.  As  long  as  we  find  the  presence  of 
God,  we  find  all  that  the  Creed  has  ventured  to  assert 
as  fact,  and  we  shall  find  all  that  is  essential  to  a  liv- 
ing faith.  Moreover,  our  house  will  be  founded  upon 
a  rock.     The  storm  of  criticism   may  rage,  whether  it 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  319 

be  higher  or  lower,  scientific  or  philosophical,  but  it 
cannot  harm  our  faith.  The  destructive  forces  which 
God  is  ever  letting  loose  in  the  world  have  this  benef- 
icent effect  ;  they  destroy  the  structures  which  are 
built  upon  the  sand.  The  weak  are  perpetually  going 
to  the  wall.  It  is  not  pleasant  for  the  weak,  but  God 
destines  us  to  be  strong,  and  so  hardly  do  we  learn  our 
lessons,  that  many  sacrifices  are  necessary  to  teach  us 
the  difference  between  the  rocks  and  the  sand. 

We  shall  see  that  modern  criticism  has  been  destruc- 
tive of  some  of  the  signs  of  the  supernatural  in  the 
Old  Testament  ;  but  I  think  we  shall  as  clearly  see 
that  it  has  not  been  destructive  of  the  supernatural 
itself,  that  is  in  the  sense  of  the  Creed.  It  has  caused 
a  change  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  presence  of  signs 
and  wonders,  but  not  in  the  presence  of  God,  even  in 
the  very  places  from  which  the  signs  and  wonders  have 
been  taken  away.  Four  phases  of  the  supernatu- 
ral may  now  each  be  briefly  considered  under  the  cap- 
tions of  miracles,  prophecy,  revelation  and  inspiration. 

I.  Miracles.  No  literary  critic  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment begins  his  work  on  the  basis  of  the  agnostic 
dictum  that  miracles  do  not  happen.  Per  sc  miracles 
in  the  Old  Testament  are  not  a  stumbling  block  ;  if 
they  are  historically  attested,  as  the  miracles  of  our 
Lord  are,  they  are  readily  accepted.  The  difficulty 
about  many  of  them  is  that  they  lack  historical  attes- 


320  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

tation.  Even  when  they  have  this  they  are  not  always 
free  from  other  grounds  of  difficulty. 

The  sign  which  was  given  to  Moses  as  an  assurance 
that  he  was  sent  of  God  to  redeem  Israel  from  the 
Egyptian  bondage  was  the  rod  which  turned  into  a 
serpent  ;  but  the  magicians  of  Egypt  also  cast  down 
their  rods  and  they  too  became  serpents  (Ex.  vii.  12). 
Likewise  these  magicians  turned  the  water  into  blood 
(vii.  22),  brought  frogs  over  the  land  of  Egypt  (viii.  7), 
and  according  to  the  correct  text,  they  brought  lice 
upon  Egypt  (viii.   18).* 

But  whether  these  signs  of  Moses  transcend  the 
powers  of  man  or  not,  the  fact  remains  that  God  was 
v/orking  through  Moses  to  bring  Israel  out  of  Egypt. 
We  should  be  careful  not  to  confuse  the  presence  of 
God  in  this  redemptive  work  with  the  supernatural 
character  of  the  signs  employed  by  His  agent. 

Sometimes  miracles  are  assumed  where  a  strict 
exegesis  does  not  admit  them.  Nowhere  did  Israel 
see  more  plainly  the  helping  hand  of  God  than  in  the 
passage  of  the  Red  Sea  ;  and  they  were  not  mistaken. 
But  it  is  well  to  realize  the  exact  character  of  that  de- 
liverance.   There  are  two  accounts  of  the  drying  up 

*  The  words  "  but  they  could  not  "  are  probably  an  interpola- 
tion. It  is  a  striking  fact  that  the  performance  of  these  signs  by 
the  magicians  is  described  only  in  the  latest  Pentateuchal  source. 
There  would  probably  be  more  of  it  but  that  this  source  fails  us 
for  the  later  signs. 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  321 

of  the  sea.  We  will  satisfy  ourselves  with  the  oldest 
one,  though  the  later  is  not  seriously  inconsistent  with 
it.  ''  And  Jahveh  caused  the  sea  to  go  all  the  night 
by  a  mighty  east  wind,  and  he  made  the  sea  into  dry 
land"  (Ex.  xiv.  21).  Though  God  moved  the  waters 
from  the  sea  by  what  we  call  a  natural  agency,  rather 
than  by  a  simple  fiat,  it  was  none  the  less  God  to 
whom  the  sons  of  Israel  owed  their  preservation. 

Criticism  comes  into  conflict  with  the  signs  and 
wonders  chiefly  in  the  consideration  of  the  character 
of  the  literature  in  which  they  are  recorded.  The 
question  about  the  miracles  of  Elijah  and  Elisha 
should  be  considered  chiefly  on  the  ground  of  the 
character  of  the  literature.  It  is  generally  held  now 
that  the  stories  of  these  prophets  are  not  historical, 
but  legendary,  containing  much  historical  matter,  but 
still  not  pure  history.  Driver  says  of  the  Elisha  stories: 
"  These  narratives  no  doubt  exhibit  the  traditions  re- 
specting Elisha  as  they  were  current  in  prophetic  cir- 
cles in  the  ninth  to  eighth  century  B.C.;  their  imme- 
diate source  may  have  been  a  work  narrating  anecdotes 
from  the  life  of  Elisha  (and  perhaps  from  the  lives  of 
other  prophets  as  well)"  (L.  O.  T.'',  p.  196).  In  these 
traditions  we  may  believe  a  large  admixture  of  legend 
to  survive,  but  the  stories  contain  their  rich  lessons 
just  the  same,  and  we  cannot  doubt  that  these  proph- 
ets conveyed  God's  message  to  the  people  of  their  age. 
Elijah's  steadfastness  to  Jehovah  in  the  face  of  bitter, 


322  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

unrelenting  persecution,  even  in  the  time  when  he  mis- 
takenly seemed  to  be  the  only  Jehovah  worshipper  left, 
was  the  great  lesson  for  Israel  and  for  us. 

The  story  of  Joshua's  great  battle  at  Beth-horon  is 
a  good  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  the  higher 
criticism  may  correct  long  prevalent  ideas  of  the  pres- 
ence of  the  supernatural.  Much  has  been  written  about 
this  famous  incident,  a  large  amount  dealing  with 
the  conflict  between  science  and  a  long  received  inter- 
pretation of  a  passage  of  Scripture.  Let  our  purpose 
be  to  find  first  the  actual  statement  of  the  Scriptures, 
neither  putting  in  nor  taking  out,  and  then  the  true 
exegesis  of  the  passage. 

The  unexpected  surrender  of  the  Gibeonites  was 
followed  by  a  formidable  alliance  of  the  five  kings  of 
Jerusalem,  Hebron,  Jarmuth,  Lachish,  and  Eglon. 
Their  immediate  purpose  was  to  chastise  the  Gibeon- 
ites for  their  surrender,  or  to  force  them  to  stand  out 
against  the  invaders.  Joshua  heard  of  the  plight  of 
his  subjects,  and  by  a  hard,  all  night  march  was  ready 
to  attack  the  confederates  at  dawn.  Very  few  of  the 
details  of  the  battle  have  been  preserved.  But  it  ap- 
pears that  the  intrepid  leader  was  anxious  to  crush  the 
alliance  at  one  blow.  He  pressed  them  hard  in  pur- 
suit, and  the  forces  of  nature  worked  on  his  side  in  the 
conflict;  for  we  are  told  that  '' Jahveh  cast  upon  them 
great  stones  from  heaven,"  and  then,  lest  succeeding 
ages  should  put  a  fanciful  interpretation  upon  the  writ- 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  323 

er's  words,  he  explains  :  "  Those  who  died  by  the  hail- 
stones were  more  than  those  whom  the  Israelites  slew 
with  the  sword  "  (Josh.  x.  ii). 

In  the  earliest  source,  from  which  the  account  of 
this  battle  is  mainly  derived,  there  is  quoted  a  frag- 
ment of  an  ancient  poem  which  is  taken  from  the  Book 
of  Jashar.  There  is  only  this  little  in  the  way  of  intro- 
duction in  the  early  source,  "and  he  said  in  the  eyes 
of  Israel."  Joshua  is  the  speaker,  and  the  little  poem 
which  follows  appears  to  be  a  prayer : 

"  Sun,  stand  still  on  Gibeon  ! 
And  moon  in  the  vale  of  Aijalon ! 
And  still  was  the  sun  and  standing  the  moon, 
Till  a  nation  took  vengeance  on  its  foes  "  (Josh.  x.  12^,  13a). 

We  should  have  no  difficulty  in  understanding  this  if 
we  read  poetry  as  poetry,  and  not  as  prose.  But,  un- 
fortunately, there  is  a  pretty  ancient  example  of  the 
turning  of  this  poetic  flight  into  sober  prose.  For  the 
passage  continues:  "  And  the  sun  stood  in  the  midst 
of  the  heavens,  and  hasted  not  to  set  about  a  whole 
day.  And  there  was  not  the  like  of  that  day  before  or 
after,  for  Jahveh's  hearing  the  voice  of  a  man  "  (v.  I3f.). 
The  latter  passage  is  the  writer's  comment  on  the 
poem  he  has  quoted.*  Though  his  sense  of  poetical 
language  may  not  have  been  acute,  he  has  put  his  fin- 

*  This  is  Sayce's  view  :  "  The  prose  historian  seems  to  have  taken 
them  [the  words  of  the  poem]  literally  "  ("  Early  History  of  the  He- 
brews," p.  257). 


324  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

g-er  upon  the  real  thing  that  made  that  day  greater 
than  any  before  or  since,  God's  hearing  the  cry  of  a 
man,  and  giving  a  prompt  and  effective  response. 
Joshua's  fear  was  that  darkness  would  come  upon  him 
before  the  rout  of  his  enemies  was  complete.  If  the 
day  would  only  hold  out,  the  allies  would  be  disposed 
of  utterly.  This  situation  explains  his  prayer.  God's 
answer  was  the  hailstorm  which  wrought  such  havoc 
among  the  enemy.  The  day  was  made  long  by  inten- 
sion rather  than  by  extension.  In  the  Song  of  Debo- 
rah we  read  that  "  the  stars  in  their  courses  fought 
against  Sisera."  Put  into  prose,  this  means  that  the 
forces  of  the  natural  world,  in  God's  providence,  aided 
Israel  in  the  combat.  No  one  has  thought  of  intro- 
ducing a  miracle  to  explain  this.  Why  should  we  in 
the  other  case  ? 

The  Book  of  Jonah  affords  a  good  example  of  a  sim- 
ilar kind.  Of  late  years  this  little  book  has  been  much 
discussed.  But  undue  attention  has  been  given  to 
the  question  whether  the  prophet  was  swallowed  by 
the  great  fish  or  not.  This  has  tended  to  obscure  the 
great  lessons  of  the  book.  The  consideration  of  this 
book  should  begin  with  the  question  whether  it  is  his- 
tory or  a  story  told  for  the  lesson  it  contains,  like  the 
parables  of  our  Lord.  The  aim  of  the  author  might 
have  been  to  record  certain  historical  facts;  to  teach 
certain  truths  in  the  form  of  a  story  with  a  moral;  or 
to  relate  such  historic  facts  as  would  illustrate  or  em- 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  325 

body  the  lesson  he  has  in  mind.  The  Hebrew  histo- 
rians, as  has  already  been  shown,  were  not  wont  to 
write  history  for  itself,  but  for  the  lessons  it  taught; 
and  so  they  wrote  it  in  such  a  way  as  best  to  teach  the 
lessons. 

The  first  alternative  is  the  least  probable.  The  his- 
toric facts  of  themselves  would  be  of  little  value.  There 
are  some  statements  which  are  against  all  probability, 
as  the  statement  respecting  the  size  of  Nineveh,  the 
inappropriateness  of  the  prayer  spoken  in  the  belly  of 
the  fish;  and  the  didactic  purpose  is  too  obvious  to  be 
only  incidental.  The  second  alternative  is  probable 
enough  inherently.  Jesus  Christ  certainly  invented 
stories  to  embody  the  truths  He  could  best  teach  in 
that  way.  A  distinguishing  characteristic  of  His  para- 
bles is,  indeed,  their  naturalness,  their  conformity  to 
probability.  Yet  in  the  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus 
we  can  hardly  suppose  Him  to  be  giving  an  exact  de- 
scription of  the  conditions  of  life  in  Heaven.  It  would 
be  hard  to  lie  in  torments  and  see  our  acquaint- 
ance in  the  bosom  of  Abraham,  and  it  would  be 
infinitely  harder  to  repose  in  that  bosom  and  see  our 
friends  in  torments,  it  being  impossible  for  us  to  mois- 
ten their  burning  lips  with  cool  water.  These  things 
are  apart  from  the  lesson  our  Lord  was  teaching, 
which  was  not  the  conditions  of  life  in  the  future 
world,  but  the  terms  on  which  we  may  attain  the  bosom 
of  Abraham.     Yet  Jesus  does  not  in  so  many  words 


326  THE  OLD  TESTA MEN'T  FROM 

inform  us  that  His  parables  are  but  the  clothing  made 
for  His  purpose.  Such  a  disclosure  was  not  necessary; 
one  can  easily  perceive  this  for  himself.  There  were 
parables  in  the  Old  Testament,  too.  Might  not  the 
story  of  Jonah  be  such  on  a  larger  scale  than  usual? 

The  third  alternative  appears  to  me  the  most  plaus- 
ible. There  is  probably  some  historical  background 
for  the  story  which  the  writer  has  used  freely  as  best  fit- 
ted his  purpose.  It  is  not  easy  to  separate  the  history 
from  the  legend;  and  it  is  not  necessary  here,  because 
that  is  apart  from  the  purpose  of  the  book.  If  a 
Avriter  elaborates  a  few  historic  facts  into  a  didactic 
story,  it  is  evident  that  he  has  little  concern  with  a 
distinction  between  the  original  and  the  borrowed. 
The  facts  to  him  are  of  a  different  character. 

The  book  of  Jonah  was  written  to  teach  two  great 
truths  ;  that  when  God  commands  one  of  His  prophets 
to  prophesy,  he  must  do  it  whether  he  will  or  not;  and 
that  God  had  a  message  for  Assyria  as  well  as  for 
Israel.  The  story  is  necessary  to  convey  these  truths, 
but  it  is  not  a  part  of  them.  They  are  just  as  true,  no 
matter  what  the  character  of  the  literature  in  which 
they  are  found.  Amos  said  that  he  preached  to  Israel, 
not  because  he  was  a  prophet,  but  because  God  com- 
manded him  to  leave  his  herd  and  carry  the  message  to 
the  doomed  people.  Jeremiah  determined  to  quit  his 
office  ;  he  was  weary  of  crying  disaster  and  ruin  to 
people  who  persecuted  him  for  his  pains.     But   he  dis- 


"    i 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  327 

covered  that  he  could  not  stop.  God  had  put  a  mes- 
sage in  his  soul,  and  it  would  come  out,  if  it  had  to  burn 
its  way.  Jonah  was  commanded  to  proclaim  in  Nine- 
veh that  it  would  be  destroyed  in  forty  days.  He  would 
have  been  eager  enough  to  be  the  bearer  of  this  tid- 
ings, if  he  could  expect  his  prophecy  to  be  fulfilled.  But 
he  knew  that  God  was  gracious,  full  of  compassion, 
slow  to  anger,  plenteous  in  mercy,  and  repentant  of 
the  evil  (Jon.  iv.  2).  Look  at  the  startling  fact.  The 
message  which  God  gave  to  Jonah  was  inconsistent 
with  God's  character.  Therefore,  the  prophet  knew  it 
would  not  be  fulfilled,  and  he  would  not  deliver  it.  He 
wanted  Nineveh  destroyed,  as  what  Jew  did  not? — and 
would  be  no  party  to  its  salvation. 

As  if  to  put  himself  out  of  the  way  of  temptation  to 
obey,  he  is  represented  as  taking  ship  for  the  furthest 
known  point  in  the  opposite  direction  to  Nineveh.  But 
not  so  could  he  escape  God.  A  mighty  storm  raged  on 
the  Mediterranean.  The  sailors  worked  bravely;  they 
cast  the  cargo  into  the  sea  ;  they  rowed  hard  to  get 
back  to  land  ;  but  the  storm  only  raged  the  more,  in 
defiance  of  their  vain  efforts.  Then  they  cast  out  the 
one  who  had  been  quietly  sleeping  in  the  innermost 
part  of  the  ship,  who  had  been  quick  enough  to 
see  that  the  storm  was  on  his  account.  The  big  fish 
(there  is  no  mention  of  a  whale)  was  the  means  de- 
vised to  bring  Jonah  back  to  his  home  port.  Jonah 
obeyed  the  divine  command  the  second  time  it  was 


328  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

given,  though  not  with  the  best  of  grace,  and  his  dis- 
appointment was  great  as  he  perceived  that  God  was 
true  to  His  merciful  character  rather  than  to  the  exact 
tenor  of  the  prophet's  words. 

There  is  a  miracle  in  this  book,  but  it  is  not  in  the 
swallowing  of  the  prophet  by  the  fish  and  his  preser- 
vation in  its  belly.  In  f  ict,  a  defender  of  the  historical 
character  of  the  book  has  given  a  purely  naturalistic 
interpretation  to  this  event.  Perowne,  in  the  Cambridge 
Bible,  states  that  there  is  a  species  of  shark  in  the 
Mediterranean  which  has  a  gullet  large  enough  to 
swallow  a  man  (the  whale  has  not);  that,  in  fact,  a  man 
was  once  swallowed  by  one  of  these  creatures  ;  that 
he  was  rescued  from  his  perilous  position  ;  and  that  he 
afterward  travelled  about  exhibiting  the  carcass  of  the 
shark.  If  this  is  so,  the  supernatural  character  of  this 
story  must  be  sought  elsewhere.  And  it  is  not  difificult 
to  find. 

Jonah,  it  is  true,  shows  very  little  sympathy  for  the 
gracious  purposes  of  God  ;  but  the  writer  of  the  book 
has  grasped  the  comprehensive  character  of  God's 
grace.  That  God  should  have  put  such  an  idea  into 
the  mind  of  a  Jew  so  effectively  is  a  greater  miracle 
than  any  conceivable  in  the  natural  world.  The  author 
of  this  book  was  himself  a  prophet  in  the  truest  sense, 
and  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  Holy  Ghost  spake  by 
him.  The  implanting  of  this  truth  in  the  soul  of  a 
Jew  is  all  the  more  remarkable  in  view  of  the  late  date 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  329 

at  which  this  book  was  most  probably  written.  For  the 
composition  of  the  book  is  assigned  to  the  fourth  cen- 
tury B.C.  ;  in  an  age  when  the  exclusive  spirit  of  the 
Jews  so  fostered  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  was  pre- 
dominant, and  when  the  Jews  were  such  severe  suf- 
ferers from  the  tyranny  of  foreigners  that  they  could 
scarcely  be  expected  to  be  very  solicitous  for  their 
welfare.  The  late  date  of  the  book  makes  all  the  more 
forcible  the  truth  it  contains.  The  solitary  voice 
lifted  in  protest  against  the  narrow  national  spirit 
of  the  age  is  another  case  of  a  ''  root  out  of  a  dry 
ground"  (Isa.  liii.  2).  It  is  well  to  emphasize  the  gain 
en  the  religious  side  which  comes  from  the  modern 
view  of  a  late  authorship  ;  for  there  is  a  very  persist- 
ent notion  abroad  that  to  refer  a  sacred  writing  to  a 
late  date  is  to  lessen,  if  not  to  destroy,  its  religious 
importance.  We  have  already  seen  the  gain  from  the 
assignment  of  the  Priest-code  to  a  post-exilic  date 
(p.  156). 

II.  Prophecy.  So  much  has  been  well  written  about 
the  apologetic  value  of  prophecy  from  the  modern 
point  of  view  that  the  subject  may  be  briefly  treated 
here.  The  negative  conclusions  that  prediction  was 
not  the  purpose  of  Hebrew  prophecy,  and  that  many 
predictions  have  not  been  fulfilled  at  all,  and  others 
only  in  part,  are  easily  established  by  any  one  with  a 
moderate  amount  of  investigation.      The  function   of 


330  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

the  prophet  was  not  that  of  a  wizard,  to  foretell  the 
future,  but  that  of  a  God-sent  preacher  of  righteous- 
ness, whose  mission  was  to  turn  the  people  from  their 
sins.  The  book  of  Jonah  affords  a  good  illustration. 
Jonah  was  apparently  directed  simply  to  make  a  spe- 
cific prediction  to  the  Ninevites.  But  he  saw  that  the 
very  purpose  of  his  prediction  was  that  its  fulfilment 
should  not  be  necessary.  God's  object  was,  by  threat 
of  punishment,  to  turn  those  people  from  their  wicked- 
ness. The  fulfilment  or  non-fulfilment  was  in  their 
0\vn  hands.  The  same  is  true  everywhere  in  prophecy. 
The  same  gracious  object  is  everywhere  visible.  The 
future  is  pictured  as  full  of  disaster  that  the  people 
may  repent,  and  the  realization  of  the  picture  there- 
fore impossible.  Or  it  is  pictured  with  glowing  colors 
that  the  people  may  be  stimulated  to  a  life  that  will 
make  the  fulfilment  possible.  As  the  people  were  never 
as  good  as  the  prophetic  ideals,  there  never  were  such 
eras  as  the  prophets  depicted.  The  people  were  as  bad 
as  the  prophets  represented  them,  perhaps  worse,  and 
so  the  greatest  calamity  on  the  prophetic  horizon,  the 
Babylonian  captivity,  became  an  accomplished  fact. 

The  delicate  question  connected  with  this  subject  is, 
however.  Messianic  prophecy.  In  the  older  apolo- 
getics the  fulfilment  of  prophecies  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
Christ  was  one  of  the  strong  proofs  of  His  divinity. 
But  this  proof  had  always  its  weak  side,  and  it  is  well 
that  modern    apologetics  approaches   the  subject  in  a 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  331 

different  way.  Not  that  Messianic  prophecy  does  not 
have  an  apolog^etic  value;  for  this  is  not  lessened,  if  it  is 
of  a  different  kind.  But  we  must  believe  in  Jesus  Christ 
on  the  ground  of  His  life,  His  teaching,  and  the  impres- 
sion He  has  produced  upon  the  world  as  the  only  One 
through  whom  man  may  receive  salvation  from  sin,  not 
on  the  ground  that  prophets  foresaw  and  foretold  certain 
things  about  Him  some  centuries  before  His  advent. 

We  may  illustrate  from  a  classic  prophecy.  The 
deepest  study  of  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah  leaves 
it  still  very  hard  to  answer  the  searching  question  of 
Candace's  eunuch,  "  Of  whom  speaketh  the  prophet 
this  ?  of  himself,  or  of  some  other  ? "  (Acts  viii.  34)  ; 
but  it  makes  it  easy  for  us,  like  Philip,  to  begin  from 
this  Scripture  and  preach  Jesus.  One  may  find  it  diffi- 
cult to  tell  whether  that  prophecy  is  written  purely 
with  reference  to  one  who  is  to  come  in  the  future,  or 
whether  it  is  based  on  the  experience  of  one  who,  like 
Hosea,  has  learned  priceless  lessons  from  the  sad  ex- 
perience of  his  life  ;  but  he  should  not  find  it  difficult 
to  see  that  it  is  Messianic  above  almost  any  other 
prophecy,  because  it  portrays  the  very  spirit  of  the  life 
of  the  Messiah.  The  apologetic  value  is  not  in  the 
prediction,  for  it  is  possible  that  there  is  no  prediction 
here  ;  but  it  is  in  the  preparing  by  the  Spirit  of  God 
for  the  coming  of  a  vicarious  Sufferer  whose  mission  in 
the  world  would  be  accomplished  even  though  the 
world  crucified  Him. 


332  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

Many  features  in  the  Messianic  conception  of  the 
prophets  are  not  found  in  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ. 
From  this  we  may  draw  the  simple  inference  that  the 
prophets  were  not  wholly  enlightened  as  to  the  future. 
The  veil  which  a  merciful  Providence  has  drawn  in  front 
of  us  was  only  partly  lifted  to  the  inspired  prophet. 
But,  as  Sanday  has  well  said,  **  As  in  other  parts  of 
prophecy,  the  fulfilment  surpassed  the  anticipation  " 
(''Inspiration",  p.  219).  We  may  apply  this  statement 
widely.  If  the  prophets  failed  to  portray  adequately 
the  Messiah,  it  is  because  their  conception  is  far  below 
the  reality.  The  person  of  Christ  stands  far  above  any 
Old  Testament  forecast.  If  there  is  anything  which 
makes  Messianic  prophecy  seem  poor  and  meagre,  it  is 
the  comparison  with  the  Messiah  Himself. 

III.  Revelation.  It  is  necessary  to  distinguish  care- 
fully between  revelation  and  inspiration.  One  might 
be  a  channel  of  revelation  without  being  inspired,  or 
be  inspired  without  being  a  channel  of  revelation. 
Revelation  and  literary  criticism  have  little  relation  to 
each  other,  except  as  the  former  may  be  connected 
with  the  character  of  Biblical  literature.  But  reve- 
lation does  not  always  stand  or  fall  with  the  character 
of  an  ancient  writing.  If  the  story  of  Abraham's  offer- 
ing of  Isaac  is  historical  in  the  strictest  sense,  there 
was  an  objective  revelation.  It  was  first  revealed  to 
Abraham  that  he  should  offer  his  son  and  then  that  he 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  333 

should  not,  and  the  purpose  of  the  event  was  the  prov- 
ing of  the  patriarch's  obedience.  But  modern  thought 
finds  great  difficulties  in  supposing  that  the  clearest 
revelation  came  at  the  beginning  and  then  became 
more  obscure.  But  it  is  not  doubted  that  Abraham 
had  a  real  revelation  of  God's  will.  The  patriarch,  in 
accord  with  the  ideas  of  his  time,  might  well  have  be- 
lieved that  human  sacrifice  was  the  most  acceptable 
offering  to  God.  But  his  only  son  bound  upon  a  pile 
opened  his  eyes  not  only  to  see  the  ram  caught  in  the 
thicket  by  his  horns,  but  also  to  perceive  that  God 
would  not  have  a  man  give  his  "  firstborn  for  his  trans- 
gression, the  fruit  of  his  body  for  the  sin  of  his  soul." 
That  was  the  revelation  to  Abraham,  and  criticism,  so 
far  from  attempting  to  take  it  away,  has  only  made  it 
the  more  clear. 

The  greatest  revelation  came  through  the  prophets 
of  the  eighth  and  seventh  centuries  B.C.  The  more 
one  studies  the  religion  which  fhey  taught  the  people 
in  comparison  with  the  popular  cult,  the  more  he  will 
feel  pressing  upon  him  the  question,  **  Whence  came 
the  ideas  which  they  gave  to  the  world  V  The  ques- 
tion presses  the  more  for  answer  as  we  realize  that  the 
prophets  did  not  voice  the  common  sentiments  of  their 
time.  Jeremiah  was  persecuted  as  a  heretic  ;  the  mass 
of  the  prophets  and  priests  tried  to  silence  his  voice. 
As  Bruce  has  put  it,  '*  They  were  men  whose  back  was 
at  the  wall  fighting  against  heavy  odds,     .     .     .     They 


334  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

were  in  a  hopeless  minority"  ("Apologetics,"  p.  190). 
They  were  not  fanatics,  delighting  to  run  counter  to 
the  cherished  conceptions  of  their  time,  and  loving  the 
glory  of  martyrdom.  Elijah  prayed  that  he  might  die 
and  give  up  the  useless  struggle  ;  but  he  wanted  to  die 
alone  in  the  wilderness,  not  at  the  public  stake. 

Renan  has  attempted  to  explain  the  high  prophetic 
ideal  as  due  to  the  Semitic  genius  for  religion,  espe- 
cially in  the  tendency  of  this  race  toward  monotheism. 
But  this  explanation  may  easily  exaggerate  the  Semitic 
tendency;  and  it  leaves  unexplained  why  this  full  de- 
velopment was  left  for  a  small  body  of  Hebrew  proph- 
ets late  in  Semitic  life — for  recent  researches  have 
shown  that  the  eighth  century  B.C.  was  late  in  common 
Semitic  history.  The  facts  which  all  will  admit  can 
only  be  explained  on  the  assumption  that  the  Nicene 
Creed  speaks  correctly.  The  Spirit  of  God  spoke  by 
these  prophets ;  they  had  a  genuine  revelation  to  com- 
municate to  the  world. 

If  God  must  be  assumed  as  the  source  of  the  pro- 
phetic message,  it  must  be  evident  that  this  explana- 
tion is  absolutely  independent  of  any  results  of  the 
higher  criticism.  Isa.  xl.-lxvi.  was  written  by  a  proph- 
et, or  by  prophets,  of  the  exilic  period.  Isaiah,  the 
son  of  Amos,  was  not  the  only  channel  of  prophetic 
revelation.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  every 
utterance,  even  of  this  greatest  of  the  prophets,  con- 
tained a  revelation   from   Heaven.     In  the  exile  God 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  335 

found  souls  through  whom  His  will  could  be  made 
known  to  the  world.  There  is  a  great  truth  revealed 
in  the  fifty- third  chapter  of  that  book.  The  servant  of 
God  may  suffer  for  the  sins  of  others,  his  life  may  be 
lived  in  obscurity  and  affliction,  he  may  be  misunder- 
stood and  martyred  ;  this  truth  is  just  the  same  whether 
it  was  revealed  through  the  son  of  Amoz  or  through 
the  unknown  evangelical  prophet  who  bore  with  his 
fellows  the  pains  of  enforced  residence  on  foreign  soil. 
The  fact  is,  revelation  is  a  subject  which  belongs  to  the- 
ology. The  character  of  the  revelation  depends  in 
some  cases  upon  the  character  of  the  literature.  The 
latter  is  a  question  for  the  literary  critic  ;  the  other  is 
a  question  for  the  theologian.  But  the  results  of  criti- 
cism can  never  make  it  impossible  or  improbable  that 
the  revelation  in  the  Old  Testament  is  genuine.  It 
will  often,  on  the  contrary,  make  it  more  intelligi- 
ble, and,  therefore,  more  probable. 

IV.  Inspiration.  Finally,  we  come  to  the  funda- 
mental fact  that  God  put  it  into  the  hearts  of  the 
prophets  to  speak  to  Israel.  To  what  particular  age 
any  Old  Testament  writing  belongs,  to  what  particular 
author,  whether  it  is  a  unit  or  composite,  whether  it  is 
history,  poetry,  or  parable,  are  matters  to  which  the 
Christian  faith  is  rightly  indifferent,  because  these 
things  are  not  vital.  But  that  these  writings  are  not 
the  productions  of  man  unaided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 


335  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT  FROM 

justly  regarded  as  essential  to  the  faith.  So  far  the 
higher  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  has  not  attempted 
even  to  call  in  question  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  nor  is  there  any  sign  on  the  distant  horizon  even 
that  it  has  any  purpose  to  do  so.  In  fact,  inspiration  is 
entirely  out  of  the  range  of  higher  critical  investi- 
gation. If  a  higher  critic  question  a  doctrine,  in- 
spiration, or  any  other,  he  must  do  so  by  coming 
out  of  the  sphere  of  criticism  and  entering  that  of 
theology. 

The  proper  attitude  of  the  critic  is  stated  by  Ott- 
ley  in  his  recent  Bampton  Lectures:  "I  proceed  to 
mention  another  truth  presupposed  in  these  lectures, 
namely,  the  fact  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures."* 
Driver  speaks  in  the  same  spirit :  "  Criticism  in  the 
hands  of  Christian  scholars  does  not  banish  or  destroy 
the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament ;  \\.  presupposes  it; 
it  seeks  only  to  determine  the  conditions  under  which  it 
operates,  and  the  literary  forms  through  which  it  man- 
ifests itself,  and  it  thus  helps  us  to  frame  truer  concep- 
tions of  the  methods  which  it  has  pleased  God  to  em- 
ploy in  revealing  Himself  to  His  ancient  people  of 
Israel,  and  in  preparing  the  way  for  the  fuller  manifes- 
tation of  Himself  in  Christ  Jesus"  (L.O.T.^  p.  xiii.). 
Briggs  has  said  somewhere  that  if  he  knew  anything 
about  criticism,    the  Pentateuch    was  not  written    by 

♦  "  Aspects  of  the  Old  Testament,"  p.  22, 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  337 

Moses  ;  but  that  if  he  knew  anything  about  inspiration, 
the  Pentateuch  was  inspired. 

Prof.  Sanday  has  done  a  valuable  service  by 
treating  of  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  from  the  point  of 
view  of  a  conservative  modern  critic.  It  will  not  be 
amiss  to  quote  a  passage  which  shows  what  his  idea  of 
inspiration  is  :  "Just  as  one  particular  branch  of  one 
particular  stock  was  chosen  to  be  in  a  general  sense 
the  recipient  of  a  clearer  revelation  than  was  vouch- 
safed to  others,  so  within  that  branch  certain  individ- 
uals were  chosen  to  have  their  hearts  and  minds 
moved  in  a  manner  more  penetrating  and  more  effec- 
tive than  their  fellows,  with  the  result  that  their  writ- 
ten words  convey  to  us  truths  about  the  nature  of  God 
and  His  dealings  with  man  which  other  writings  do 
not  convey  with  equal  fulness,  power,  and  purity. 
We  say  that  this  special  moving  is  due  to  the  action 
upon  those  hearts  and  minds  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  we 
call  that  action  Inspiration  "  ("  Bampton  Lectures,"  p. 
127).  Evidently  the  author  has  not  found  any  difficulty 
in  holding  to  inspiration  and  criticism  at  the  same  time. 

Ottley  has  recently  uttered  some  wise  words  on  this 
subject.  A  few  passages  may  be  quoted  :  "  Inspira- 
tion means  a  divine  action  on  man's  faculties  by  which 
his  intellect  is  continually  trained  to  more  intelligent 
apprehension  of  divine  purposes,  his  conscience  to 
deeper  knowledge  of  moral  requirement,  his  heart  to 
worthier  love,  his  will  to  more  exact  response. 


33B  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

"  Let  us  inquire  wherein  the  inspiration  of  the  Bibli- 
cal writers  consists  ?  Chiefly,  it  would  seem,  in  a  gift 
of  special  moral  and  religious  insight.  The  inspired 
writer  is  one  who  is  spiritually  enlightened.  .  .  . 
Next  we  should  bear  in  mind  that  inspiration  in  its 
primary  sense  does  not  properly  describe  the  character 
of  a  sacred  book,  but  rather  denotes  the  living  action 
of  God  on  the  faculties  of  men.  ...  It  would  be 
perilous  to  attempt  any  formal  definition  [of  inspira- 
tion], .  .  .  We  should  certainly  define  at  the  expense 
of  overlooking  some  vital  element  of  divine  truth" 
("  Bampton  Lectures,"  p.  23ff.).  Many  in  all  the  Chris- 
tian ages  have  attempted  elaborate  definitions  of  in- 
spiration ;  but  their  definitions,  even  when  given  the 
authority  of  Ecclesiastical  Assemblies,  have  rarely  out- 
lived the  age  in  which  they  were  produced.  The  Creed 
which  has  survived,  and  is  vital  to-day,  contents  itself 
with  the  assertion  of  the  fact  of  inspiration. 

Christians  who  have  accepted  the  results  of  modern 
criticism  then,  still  believe  in  inspiration,  and  they  do 
not  see  any  inconsistency  in  their  position.  If  they 
believe  that  Psa.  xiv.  was  written  by  an  unknown  poet 
in  the  period  of  the  exile, they  cannot  see  that  that  belief 
affects  the  question  of  its  inspiration.  Inspiration,  it  is 
true,  must  be  found  in  the  author,  not  in  his  book  ; 
just  as  the  Hfe  is  in  the  tree,  and  not  in  the  fruit, 
though  the  fruit  is  the  raison  d'  itre  of  the  tree.  But 
the  tree  must  nevertheless  be  judged  by  its  fruit ;  and 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW,  339 

the  inspiration  of  the  author  can  only  be  known  to  us 
by  his  book.  The  evidence  of  the  inspiration  of  that 
Psahn  then  is  not  to  be  found  in  its  supposed  Davidic 
authorship,  as  if  everything  that  he  might  have  writ- 
ten must  have  been  inspired  ;  it  must  rather  be  found 
in  the  rehgious  quaHty  of  the  Psalm,  its  power,  as  Col- 
eridge put  it,  to  find  the  human  soul  at  the  greatest 
depth  of  its  being.  The  bitter  curses  in  Psa.  cix.  are 
no  more  appropriate  on  Christian  lips,  and  no  more  in 
harmony  with  the  higher  revelation  in  Christ,  on  the 
theory  of  the  Jewish  editors  that  David  was  the  author, 
than  on  the  more  probable  theory  that  this  is  the  out- 
pouring of  a  soul,  deeply  moved  of  God  indeed,  but 
who  had  endured  persecutions  of  which  David  did  not 
dream. 

Moses  was  doubtless  inspired  to  act,  to  speak,  to 
judge,  yes,  and  to  write.  But  the  fruit  by  which  we 
must  judge  cannot  be  changed  by  assuming  that  Moses 
was  the  stock  on  which  it  grew.  The  inspiration  of  the 
Priest-code  is  to  be  seen  in  its  contribution  to  the  re- 
ligious life  of  Israel — and  that  was  not  small — and  this 
is  not  greater  on  the  supposition  that  it  came  from  the 
hand  of  the  great  lawgiver,  than  on  the  view  that  it 
was  the  growth  of  many  years,  culminating  in  its  fin- 
ished form  in  the  post-exilic  era. 

There  are  two  elements  disclosed  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  human  and  the  divine.  Some  theories  of  its 
origin  have  laid  undue  stress  upon  the  one,  and  some 


340  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FROM 

upon  the  other.  We  cannot  get  along  very  well  without 
allowing  a  large  influence  to  both  factors.  If  some- 
tinnes  the  human  element  seems  so  conspicuous  that  we 
feel,  like  the  troubled  Psalmist,  that  God  has  aban- 
doned His  saints,  at  other  times  we  hear  so  pure  a  voice 
from  Heaven  that  God  seems  to  have  chosen  a  peculiar- 
ly transparent  soul  through  which  to  send  His  light,  or 
even,  to  use  an  Old  Testament  figure,  to  have  written 
with  His  own  finger. 

The  Old  Testament  must  be  studied  scientifically. 
The  literary  critic,  the  historical  critic,  the  historian  of 
religion,  the  archaeologist,  the  grammarian  and  the  lexi- 
cographer, must  contribute  all  the  light  they  have  to 
the  solution  of  its  many  hard  problems.  We  shall  but 
delude  ourselves  if  we  ever  say  their  work  is  finished, 
they  can  go  no  further;  we  are  willing  to  accept  what 
they  have  at  present  achieved  if  they  will  rest  content. 
It  can  never  be  said  to  these  investigators.  So  far  you 
shall  go  and  no  farther,  so  long  as  they  keep  to  their 
proper  sphere,  which  is  largely  the  human  element  in 
the  Scriptures.  But  if  they  ever  attempt  to  go  further, 
and  say  that  God  was  not  behind  Israel  in  their  history, 
in  their  institutions,  in  their  religion,  and  in  their  litera- 
ture, then  we  may  point  out  the  great  gulf  which  the 
literary  critics  may  not  cross. 

I  can  find  no  satisfactory  concluding  words  for  this 
book  except  some  words  of  St.  Paul,  who  knew  the 
Scriptures  so  well  and  loved  them  so  dearly,  and  an 


THE  MODERN  POINT  OF  VIEW.  34I 

Advent  Collect  which  is  based  upon  St.  Paul.  They  are 
so  suitable  because  they  express  the  higher  purpose  of 
the  Scriptures  to  which  all  scientific  investigation  must 
be  subordinate. 

*'  Whatsoever  things  were  written  aforetime  were 
written  for  our  learning,  that  we  through  patience  and 
comfort  of  the  Scriptures  might  have  hope  "  (Rom.  xv. 

4). 

"  Blessed  Lord,  who  hast  caused  all  Holy  Scriptures 
to  be  written  for  our  learning ;  Grant  that  we  may  in 
such  wise  hear  them,  read,  mark,  learn,  and  inwardly 
digest  them,  that  by  patience  and  comfort  of  thy  holy 
Word  we  may  embrace,  and  ever  hold  fast,  the  blessed 
hope  of  everlasting  life,  which  thou  hast  given  us  in  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ.     Amen  " 


INDEXES. 


I.  Abreviations. 


E.  E.^  etc.    Elohist,  etc See  p.  79 

H.  C.  M.        The  "  Higher  Criticism  "  and  the  Verdict 

of  the  Monuments,  by  the  Rev,  A.  H. 

Sayce.     New  York:  1894. 

J.  J. \  etc.      Jahvist,  etc See  p.  yg 

J.  B.   L.         Journal  of  the  Society  of  BibHcal  Litera- 
ture and  Exegesis. 

JE  See  pp.  8t„  100 

L.  O.  T.''       An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the 

Old  Testament,  by  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D. 

Sixth  edition.     New  York  :  1897. 
O.  T.  J.  C.2    The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church, 

by  W.  Robertson  Smith.    Second  edition. 

New  York:  1892. 
P.  Priestly  writer 5^^  p.  79 


II.  Names  and  Subjects. 

Abd-hiba,  or  Ebed-Tob,  king  of  Jerusalem 38 

Abib 102 

Abijah's  war  with  Jeroboam 209f. 

Abimelech,  king  of  Gath 280 

Abraham's  offering  of  Isaac 332f. 

Achan ,  sin  of „ 2ooff . 

Acrostic  Psalms 265 

Adaptation  of  Psalms 265 


344  INDEXES. 

Ai,  campaign  against 163,  2ooff. 

Analysis  of  books,  reasonableness  of 80 

Analysis  of  Historical  books 161 

Anonymous  Psalms :  66,  269,  272 

Antiochus  Epiphanes 302 

Apologetic  gain  of  post- exilic  date  for  Priest-code 1 56 

Archaeology  and  criticism 3iff . 

Asa's  war  with  the  Ethiopians 2iof. 

Asaphic  Psalms 27of . 

Babylon's  fall 243 

Beth-horon,  battle  of , 72,  322ff. 

Bethel,  stories  of  the  origin  of  the  name 92fT. 

Blood  revenge 197 

Book  of  the  Law  found  in  the  Temple 54f . 

Book  of  the  "  Wars  of  Jehovah  " 1 1 2,  1 1 5 

Booths  or  Tabernacles,  feast  of 138 

Caleb  and  Joshua 105 

Cheyne's  analysis  of  Isaiah 49 

'•         work  on  Isaiah 224f. 

Christ's  verdict  in  questions  of  criticism 2 iff. 

Chronicles,  additions 2o8ff. 

"  character  of 80,  203ff.,  218 

"           date  of 204 

"           omissions 205ff . 

"           place  in  the  Canon 204 

value  of 2i8f. 

Cities  of  refuge 64 

Codes  of  the  law 1 20 

"         "        "    their  origin   121 

"         "        "   their  parallels    122 

Colophon  to  Psalm  Ixxii 271 

Comparative  study  of  the  laws,  result  of I48f. 

Compilation,  a  method  of  bookmaking 12 

Conquest  of  Canaan i6iff. 

Covenant,  date  of  the  code  of I49f. 


LVDEXES,  345 

Creation,  comparison  of  the  two  stories  of 84ff. 

Criticism  does  not  affect  religious  value 3 1 2f. 

Higher,  explained 7ff. 

of  the  Old  Testament  not  short-lived 49ff. 

of  the  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament  con- 
trasted   51 

"        negative  character  of I4f. 

textual,  of  the  Old  Testament 8 

Cyrus 247 

Dan,  City  of 114 

Date  of  the  Hexateuchal  narrative i  i4ff. 

David  at  Saul's  court 1 73f. 

"       executes  the  sons  of  Saul i94ff. 

"       in  Chronicles 205f . 

"       and  Goliath i73ff. 

"       spares  Saul's  life iSiff. 

"  Of  David  "  in  Psalm  headings 267n. 

Davidic  Psalms,  Are  there  any  ? 282fif. 

Debts,  release  of 1 28 

Decalogue,  two  versions  of I44ff. 

Delitzsch's  acceptance  of  Modern  Criticism   51 

Delitzsch  on  Isaiah 228 

Deuteronomy,  authorship  of 64ff, 

"            date  of rjjff 

Deutero- Isaiah,  analysis  of 242f. 

"             "       character  of 242 

"             "       influence  of 246 

Diatesseron  of  Tatian 81 

Disagreement  of  critics 45ff,  24off. 

Discouragement  in  post-exilic  age 23 5f. 

Dives  and  Lazarus,  Parable  of 31 5f. 

Driver's  Introduction n^{^ 

"       position  as  a  critic ^-^f, 

review  of  Sayce's  "  Criticism  and  the  Monuments."  34 

Edom's  devastation 237f. 

Egyptians  spoiled  by  the  Hebrews i98f. 


346  INDEXES. 

Elijah  and  Elisha,  stories  of 321 

Elohtm  applied  to  king  and  judge 293f. 

Evidence,  cautious  use  of  internal 285,  287 

"         internal  and  external 258 

Excavations  in  Palestine,  importance  of 43^- 

Exile,  conditions  in 237f,,  244f 

Ezekiel,  priest  and  prophet 1 57 

First-born  of  animals ...    1 32f. 

Gesenius's  Grammar,  successive  editings  of 1 53 

Gibeonites,  cunning  trick  of . .       163 

"  slain  by  Saul 194 

"  treaty  with  Joshua io7ff. 

Gideon 192 

Greenleaf  on  evidence 11 3ff- 

Greek  Psalter 26S,  273f.,  274,  275 

Goliath,  slain  by  David,  or  by  Elhanan  } i78ff. 

Hallelujah  Psalms 274 

Harvest  Festival 1 38!. 

Havvoth- jair 6of.,  1 1 5 

Headings  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah 252 

Headings  of  prophecies 229 

Headings  of  the  Psalms 266ff.,  275f. ,  277ff. 

Hexateuch 53 

"  analysis  of 79 

Hezekiah's  attempt  to  centralize  worship 77 

High  places  forbidden  in  Deuteronomy 69 

Hiram  and  Solomon 2i5f. 

Historicity  not  affected  by  analysis i  loff. 

Historical  notes  in  the  headings 272,  274,  278,  281 

History  and  Philosophy i87f. 

Holiness,  the  Law  of 122 

Hommel's  "Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition  " 32f. 

Human  and  divine  in  Scripture 339f. 

Incarnation  and  Criticism 26 


INDEXES.  347 

Inspiration 335^. 

"  Sanday's  definition  of 337 

Interpretative  character  of  history 1 88ff. 

Isaiah,  criticism  of 224ff. 

"       formation  of  the  Book  of 25off . 

Isaianic  prophecies,  according  to  Cheyne 224f. 

"   Driver 225f. 


J.  and  E.  narratives  based  on  written  sources inf. 

Jabesh-Gilead  seeks  succor  in  Israel 171 

Jacob  named  "  Israel  " 92,  94 

"      sent  to  Syria 89!!. 

Jashar,  Book  of 14,112,  283 

Jeduthun 272 

Jeremiah,  formation  of  the  Book  of 251 

"         and  the  book  of  the  Law 57 

Jericho,  capture  of 162 

Joash's  assassination 217 

Jonah,  Book  of 324ff . 

its  character 325 

"      its  lessons 326 

Jonathan  the  grandson  of  Moses 70 

Joseph,  derivation  of  the  name 95 

sold  into  Egypt 96fTf. 

Joshua's  part  in  the  Conquest 168 

Josiah's  reformation 54,  73 

.   "              "            based  en  Deuteronomy 55ff. 

Judges,  character  of  the  Book  of i9of. 


King,  law  of  the,  in  Deuteronomy 67 

Kiriath-Sepher 4  if. 

Korahitic  Psalms 27of. 

Lachish 43!, 

Lambeth  Conference,  its  utterance  on  Criticism 28f. 

Landmark,  law  of 63 


348  INDEXES. 

Levites,  their  relation  to  priests I43f.,  1 58 

"       their  revenues , 143^ 

Literary  analysis  work  for  the  expert , 8 if. 


Maccabean  Psalms 293 

Manasseh's  Babylonian  captivity 2 1 1  f. 

Melchizedek 37ff. 

Messianic  Prophecy 33of . 

"         Psalms 293 

Miracles 3i9ff. 

Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Law 1 5 if. 

"  "  "       Pentateuch 4if.,  iiyf. 

"       elements  in  Deuteronomy 7-,f. 

Moses  works  signs 320 

Moral  difficulties  of  the  Old  Testament i97f. 

Nabonidus .  249 

Natural  and  the  supernatural 31 7f. 

Nehemiah 236 

New  Testament  use  of  the  Old  Testament I7ff. 

Nicene  Creed  and  the  Scriptures 26f.,  314,  315 

Nisan , 1 03 

Northern  Kingdom  in  Chronicles 207 

•'  On  the  other  side  of  Jordan  " 59f. 

Partisan  history i88f. 

Passage  of  the  Red  Sea 32of. 

Passover 1 38f. 

"        Institution  of ...    .  99ff. 

Pentateuch,  a  compilation 47 

Peters,  Dr.  J.  P.,  speech  at  Church  Congress 42f. 

Pilgrim  feasts 1 330". 

Pillars  forbidden  in  Deuteronomy o . . . .  72f. 

Pious  fraud  hi  re  the  finding  of  the  Law 74ff. 

Predictive  Prophecy , .  227f. 


INDEXES.  349 

Priest-  code 1 53f. 

date  of 48 

Priestly  institutions  earlier  than  priestly  law i  59f. 

revenues 14  ff. 

Prophecy,  apologetic  value  of 222f.,  329^ 

"         basis  for  its  dating 2  26f. 

Prophets  ignorant  of  Deuteronomy 72ff . 

Prophetic  office 227f. 

Prophets,  revelation  by 333f. 

"         studied  historically 223 

Psalms  of  David 258 

"       Pilgrim , 273f. 

"       referring  to  a  king 288ff. 

Psalter,  divisions  of . .  26off .,  266 

"       duplicates  in 26off. 

"       Elohistic  and  Jahvistic 263 

"       hymn  book  of  the  second  temple 259 

"       influence  of 255 

"       Jewish  criticism  of 257f. 

"       why  studied  critically 256 

"       Baethgen's  view  of  the  date 257 

"       Cheyne's          "      "          "      256f. 

"       Driver's            "       "          "     257 

*'       Ewald's            "       "          "     257 

"       Wellhausen's  "       *'          "    256 

Religious  ideas  as  evidence  of  date 286f. 

Reuben  and  Gad  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan io5ff. 

Righteousness  by  the  law 307f. 

Rizpah  watches  the  bodies  of  her  sons 195,  196 

Revelation 332ff. 

Sabbath 89 

"        day,  reasons  for  its  institution 1 45f. 

"        law,  original  form  of I46f. 

"        year,  the  laws  of 1 26ff. 

Sacrifice  at  many  altars 69ff . 


350  INDEXES. 

Samuel .  70 

"       anoints  David 180,199!. 

Sanctuary,  but  one  allowed  in  Deuteronomy 68ff. 

Sanday's  argument  against  Maccabean  Psalms 300 

Sargon's  campaign  against  Ashdod 35 

Satan  tempts  David 215 

Saul's  accession  to  the  throne i68ff. 

Sayce's  "  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments  " 33 

"  Scriptures,  Hebrew  and  Christian  " 57n. 

Sennacherib's  conquest  of  Samaria  and  assassination 36,  37 

Septuagint  version  of  the  story  of  David  and  Goliath 17  ff. 

Signs  and  wonders 3 '  3ff- 

Slaves,  release  of 131 

Slavery,  laws  of 1 29ff. 

Spies  sent  to  Canaan i03fT. 

Spirit  for  critical  investigation 53f. 

Solomon  in  Chronicles 2o6f . 

Solomonic  Psalms 277!. 

Sources  of  the  Book  of  Kings 212 

"          "               "      Chronicles 2i3f. 

Supernatural  in  Old  Testament 31 3ff . 

Sun  and  moon  standing  still 323f. 

Synagogues 303,  306 

Tell-el- Amarna  Letters : 38,  41 

The  Law  and  the  Prophets 1 54ff. 

Theology  and  History 193 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 21 

Timeliness  of  Josiah's  reforms 76ff. 

Tithe,  the  laws  of  the 1 22f¥. 

Unleavened  Bread,  Feast  of loiff. 

Uzziah's  conflict  with  the  priests 211 

Variation  in  text c  .  0 262,  264f. 

W.  R.  Smith's  argument  against  Maccabean  Psalms 300 


INDEXES. 


351 


Genesis. 

i.,  ii 

i.  i-ii.  4 


III.  Scriptural  Passages. 
Leviticus. 


84ff. 

, 2l9f. 

vii.  16 49 

xxvii.  41-45,  xxviii.  10  89ff. 

xxvii.  46-xxviii.  5..  ..  89ff. 

xxviii.  35 92ff. 

XXX.  23f 93f. 

xxxii.  28 94 

xxxvi.  31 ii4f. 

xxxvii 96ff. 

xl.  15 98 

xlii.  21 99 


XXV.  39-46 i29fT. 

xxvii.  26 133 

xxvii.  30-33 I22ff. 

Numbers. 

xiii.  14 I03ff. 

xviii.  1-20 I4iff. 

xviii.  17! i32f. 

xviii.  21-32 I22ff. 

xxii.  i-ii I5if. 

xxviii.,  xxix 140 

xxxii.  20-32 io6f. 

xxxii.  41 115 


Exodus. 

iii.  2 if 199 

viii.  ]8 320 

xi.  if 199 

xii.  I -xiii.  27 99ff. 

xii.  14-20 loiff. 

xii.  35f 198 

xiii.  3-10 loiff. 

xiv.  21 321 

xviii 151 

XX.  8   II,  17 145 

XX.  24ff 56 

xxi.  2-1 1 I29ff. 

xxii.  30 I32f. 

xxiii.  lof . .  1 26ff. 

xxiii.  14-17. ^33^' 

Leviticus. 

xvi. ..    I58f. 

xxi.  7.  14 159 

xxiii.  4ff i33ff. 

XXV.   1-7 I26ff. 


Deuteronomy. 

ii.  1 2 60 

iii.  14 60,  61 

iv.  45f 61 

V.  12-15,  21 145 

xii.  5ff 56 

xiii.  iff 3i6f. 

xiv.  22-29 122ff. 

XV.   Iff I26ff. 

XV.    12-18, I29ff. 

XV.  19-23 I32f. 


XVI.  1-17. .. 
xvii.  I4ff.. . 
xviii.  1-8. . . 
xix.  14.  .  . .. 

XX.  5 

xxii.  8 

xxvii.  1-4,  8, 


I33ff. 

67 

I4iff. 

63 
63 
63 
66 


Joshua. 

i.-xii i62ff. 

vii.  4 200 


352 


INDEXES. 


Joshua  viii.  3f.,  13 201  n. 

ix.  15-27 io7ff. 

X.  II 323 

X.  12,  13 323 

X.  4of 164 

xi.  4 164 

xi.  23 164 

Judges. 

i i66f. 

ii.  iiff i9of. 

iii.  12-15,  30 191 

V.  1 10 

vi.  13 192 

xvii.,  xviii 70 

I.  Samuel. 

viii.-xii 170 

viii.  4ff 169 

xvi.  iff ...  I99f. 

xvi.  iiff 173 

xvi.  18,  23 283 

xvii.  I -xviii.  5   . , . .  i8of. 

xvii.  4,  7. .  178 

xvii.  12 i''4n. 

xvii.  I2ff 176 

xvii.  33f 175 

xviii.  6 1 80 

xxi 71 

xxi.  12 280 

xxi.  19 178 

xxiv.,  xxvi i8iff. 

XXX.  25 152 

II.  Samuel. 

i.  19-27 283 

iii.  33ff 283 

V.  2 172 


II.  Samuel  vii.  13 291 

xxi  -xxiii 179,  279 

xxi.  1-14 I94ff. 

xxiii.  I 284 

xxiii.  1-7 283 

xxiv.  I. 215 

I.  Kings. 

iii.  14 214 

ix.  II 21$ 

II.  Kings. 

ix.  27f 216 

xii.  2off 217 

xvii.  3ff 36f. 

xix.  36ff 36 

xxii.  10 54 

xxii.  13 56 

I.  Chronicles. 

XX.  5 178 

xxi.  1 215 

II.  Chronicles. 

i.  3 214 

viii.  2 215 

xxii.  7-9 216 

xxiv.  2  5f 217 

Psalms. 

i.-xli 266ff. 

ii 266 

iii 278f. 

iv 307f- 

ix.,  X 266f. 

xiv 338f. 

xiv.,  liii 26of. 

xviii 279 


INDEXES. 


353 


Psalms  XX 259,  288ff. 

29off. 

, 309ff. 

268 

268 

268 


XXI 

xxii 

xxiv 

xxvii 

xxix 

xxxiii 267 

xxxiv 280 

xxxviii 268f. 

xl,  1.  li 296ff. 

xl.  6  296 

xlii.-xliii 269!.,  31  if. 

xlii.-lxxxix 296ff, 

xliv 30if. 

xlv 292ff , 

1.  5 297 

1.  8-15 297 

li 297f. 

li.  i8f 298f. 

Ixvi.,  Ixvii 270 

Ixxi 270 

Ixxii 271!.,  277 

Ixxiv 302ff. 

Ixxix 306 

Ixxxvi 27 1 

Ixxxviii II,  272 

xc.-cl . .  272ff. 

xcvi ...  27511. 

civ.  14,  24  318 

cix 339 

ex 23f. 

cxx.-cxxxiv 273f. 

cxxvii 278 

cxxxvii 232,  245,  307 

cli.  (Ixx.) 275 


Isaiah. 

i.-xii 252 

i.  11-14 155 

xiii.-xxiii 252f. 

xiii.  i-xiv.  23 229ff. 

xix.  19 72 

XX 35 

xxiv.-xxvii 232ff . 

xxiv.-xxxv 253 

xxvi.  I 236 

xxxiv.,  XXXV 236ff. 

xxxvi.-xxxix 224,  229 

xl.-lxvi 228,  242ff. ,  334 

xlv.  I  ff 248 

xlv.  9-13 248f. 

xlvi.  if 249 

xlvii.  if 250 

xlviii.  20 250 

li» 244,331,  335 

liii.  2 329 

Jeremiah. 

vi.  20 155 

vii.  21 155 

xi.  1-8 57 

xxxvi 222n. 

Ezekiel. 

xliv.  II 158 

xliv.  22 159 

xlv.  i8fT 158 


Hosea. 
vi.  6. 


Proverbs, 
xxii.  28, 


63 


Amos. 

V.  21-23. 
V.  25 


154 


154 
155 


354 


INDEXES. 


Micah.  St.  Matthew, 

vi,  6-8 o,.       154  xxvii.  9. 


Jonah, 
iv.  2 


327 


St.  Luke. 

xvi.  31.. 
XX.  37.. 
xxiv.  44. 


316 
21 

22 


Zechariah. 
xi.  13. 


15 


Acts. 

viii.  34 


331 
309 


I.  Maccabees, 
i.  44ff.... 
iii.  46. . , . 


305 
306 


Romans. 

XV.  4 


iv.  38 . . .   305!.       Hebrews. 

iv.  46 , 305  i.  I. . 


341 


I7f. 


BS1171.B335 

The  Old  Testament  from  the  modern  point 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00011   8051 


